Straight Dope Message Board

Straight Dope Message Board (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/index.php)
-   About This Message Board (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/forumdisplay.php?f=2)
-   -   There should be some penalty for protesting your warning and not having it overturned (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=888936)

filmore 01-24-2020 09:31 AM

There should be some penalty for protesting your warning and not having it overturned
 
While it's okay to discuss board moderation in a general aspect, I think it's detrimental for the board's culture for people who get a warning to then start a thread in ATMB to complain about the warning. Getting a warning is not the end of the world. The person should take the lesson to heart and move on. If they feel like they have been wronged, then an official complaint thread in ATMB may be warranted, but it should only be done after careful consideration. If they are just complaining to complain, then it seems like there should be some additional penalty for complaining about the warning. Having some downside to making a complaint will help to ensure that the complaint is valid.

This is similar to how the NFL allows coaches to ask for a review of a call by the officials. The coaches can't just ask for reviews whenever they feel like it. They have a certain number of challenges allowed per game. If the call is not overruled, they lose one of their timeouts. This format ensures the coaches will only make a challenge when they feel there has been a mistake made that's worth a second look.

So I would propose something similar here. If someone wants just complain and blow off some steam about their warning, they can create a thread in the Pit and rant to their heart's content. But if they want to make an official complaint about the warning in ATMB, then they should be risking something if the warning is not overturned. It could be that they lose the ability to post in the forum where they got the warning for a certain amount of time or something like that. This would help deter people with warnings from creating complaint threads in ATMB just to stir up more trouble.

Turek 01-24-2020 09:34 AM

That's absurd.

If the protest thread gets to be "too much" trouble, all the mods have to do is say "this is done" and close it.

Joey P 01-24-2020 09:40 AM

100% disagree. Penalizing someone for protesting a warning gives the mods far more power. If the warning is overturned, nothing changes from the current system. If the warning isn't overturned, you're punished twice.
I also have never understood the idea that you should just accept the note because it's only a note. If you got pulled over while driving 30 in a 30mph zone and the cop gave you a written warning for going 55 in a 35, would you not want to contest that? Sure, it's just a warning, but the next time you deal with the police, that warning is going to show up.
Same thing here. You get a note for insulting someone when you didn't insult anyone, the mod simply misunderstood what you said (lets take that at face value). The next time there's an incident, they'll see the previous warning and take that into consideration with how to handle the current issue.

If, like in football, someone contests a warning in order to prevent or cause something else from happening, that's entirely different. Timeouts in football are/can be done for strategic reasons, otherwise the last 5 minutes of the game wouldn't take 20 minutes. I can understand penalizing people when they're using timeouts to game the system.

My suggestion would be that if a poster is consistently getting notes (or warnings) and consistently starting ATBM threads about them and the mods are consistently not overturning them (and other posters agree with that) then that seems like a one on one issue between that poster and the staff. Otherwise, this just seems like a solution in search of a problem.

ETA, the only way this system would make sense is if it's reciprocal. If a certain percentage of a mod's notes and warnings are overturned, they're forced to step down.

Also, with your system, what prevents a mod from just writings warnings and notes for the fun of it to see what sticks. Considering how many people will be afraid to contest them for fear of getting punished.

filmore 01-24-2020 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joey P (Post 22097977)
Also, with your system, what prevents a mod from just writings warnings and notes for the fun of it to see what sticks. Considering how many people will be afraid to contest them for fear of getting punished.

What would prevent that is the board in general would start to complain about the moderation. The people getting the warnings would not need to start their own thread. Other people would be starting threads saying the mod is being a bad mod.

In threads where someone gets a warning for a misunderstanding, it's common for that person or other people to clarify that issue. But it's not an official thread in ATMB or anything. It's something like "I didn't mean to say it like that." and the thread moves on.

The system I'm proposing would not prevent people from complaining about their warnings, but it would make it less likely that people would be complaining just because they didn't like the warning. If there has truly been some misunderstanding, then the person can make a thread knowing that they may have another penalty if it doesn't work out. And it's not the end of the world if they get a 2nd penalty. It doesn't have to be another warning or ban. If a person feels so strongly that the warning was done incorrectly, they can still do it.

kopek 01-24-2020 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filmore (Post 22098018)
What would prevent that is the board in general would start to complain about the moderation. The people getting the warnings would not need to start their own thread. Other people would be starting threads saying the mod is being a bad mod.

We already have a fair amount of that now. Sometimes by friends and sometimes not but it's not that uncommon.


I understand the OPs point and position and I will admit to getting frustrated myself at seeing the same people complaining about the same "points of Moderation" over and over again. But as at least one other has said, when that becomes the case the Mod for this forum can (and has) shut threads down. And at times the Mods and us learn things even from the clearest cases of a just warning being protested; it allows the board to grow and change with the times. So while I understand the theory of the OP I would be against its implementation.

Jasmine 01-24-2020 10:56 AM

I disagree for the same reason that I disagree with the policy of charging a defendant a "court fee" for appealing a moving violation and failing to win that appeal. It's a very intimidating policy, and people who might otherwise win in court are discouraged from even trying because of fear of punishment.

I remember appealing a "fixed camera" violation I got in the mail for speeding past a park. No speed was listed. My appeal was based on the fact that they couldn't even tell me how fast I was going. I basically got a picture of my car and an accusation. Their reply was that I could file a law suit for a fee of $360. Really?!

kayaker 01-24-2020 10:57 AM

Likewise, I think someone creating a thread saying there should be some penalty for protesting your warning and not having it overturned should face some consequence if their suggestion is not acted upon.

wolfpup 01-24-2020 11:10 AM

You're proposing a solution for a problem that doesn't exist. The ability to discuss moderation, including objecting to warnings, is one of the unique features of this board that makes it a better place. Many sites strictly prohibit any discussion or criticism of moderation, leaving moderators full scope for bias and capriciousness with zero accountability.

Even if an objection has no merit, explaining that fact -- which is often done by regular posters as well as mods -- helps others, especially the OP and new joins, understand the board culture better. I have rarely if ever seen an objection to a warning that was entirely frivolous, in that it lacked any kind of even semi-coherent explanation that usually merited at least some discussion, but any such posts can be quickly closed. Those who truly revel in trolling and sealioning are dealt with in other ways. I think the ATMB forum and its intended purposes are useful and important.

GreysonCarlisle 01-24-2020 11:12 AM

I agree. In fact, I think that trying to get something about the board's rules or culture changed should get dinged if the suggestion isn't implemented. After three dings, it's obvious that the poster isn't happy here, so the mods should help the poster move on.

Passive-aggressive surreptitious commentary on another poster under the guise of a suggestion should get two, maybe three, dings.

filmore 01-24-2020 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kayaker (Post 22098128)
Likewise, I think someone creating a thread saying there should be some penalty for protesting your warning and not having it overturned should face some consequence if their suggestion is not acted upon.

I actually agree with that. I am making a suggestion in the part of the board meant for official business. This request will take time and energy by the mods and admins to review and discuss. Someone making such a suggestion should feel strongly enough about the idea to make it worthy of that time and effort. If the person did not feel that strongly about their idea, they should make the suggestion in a part of the board with more casual discussions where the admins would not feel the need to respond.

The perspective I'm coming from is that moderation is done by volunteers. They have normal lives with TV to watch, family to be with, errands to run, etc. Moderation takes time and energy. It doesn't seem like it would be a fun or easy task to look at reports and rule on them. And often, that's met with lots of complaining no matter how they rule. All of that makes me wonder why anyone would be a mod anyway. I would think that greatly reduces the pool of people willing to be a mod and makes it much harder to find good mods . If someone makes an official complaint about their warning where the expectation is that the mods need to respond, that's more hassle the mod has to deal with. So I feel that a person making an official protest should have to make some sacrifice for creating that extra work for the volunteer mod who has to take time out of their day to respond.

This doesn't mean people can't complain about their warnings. They could do it in other parts of the board. And it doesn't mean they can't complain about moderation in general. That could still be done in ATMB. But if someone is starting a thread in ATMB of the form "I am protesting about my warning", then there should be a difference between a complainer just complaining and a person who got an unjust warning.

RTFirefly 01-24-2020 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wolfpup (Post 22098153)
You're proposing a solution for a problem that doesn't exist.

I concur.

Teuton 01-24-2020 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filmore (Post 22097959)
So I would propose something similar here. If someone wants just complain and blow off some steam about their warning, they can create a thread in the Pit and rant to their heart's content. But if they want to make an official complaint about the warning in ATMB, then they should be risking something if the warning is not overturned. It could be that they lose the ability to post in the forum where they got the warning for a certain amount of time or something like that. This would help deter people with warnings from creating complaint threads in ATMB just to stir up more trouble.

Allowing people to bitch about warnings in the Pit would be a mistake.

bump 01-24-2020 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wolfpup (Post 22098153)
You're proposing a solution for a problem that doesn't exist. The ability to discuss moderation, including objecting to warnings, is one of the unique features of this board that makes it a better place. Many sites strictly prohibit any discussion or criticism of moderation, leaving moderators full scope for bias and capriciousness with zero accountability.

Even if an objection has no merit, explaining that fact -- which is often done by regular posters as well as mods -- helps others, especially the OP and new joins, understand the board culture better. I have rarely if ever seen an objection to a warning that was entirely frivolous, in that it lacked any kind of even semi-coherent explanation that usually merited at least some discussion, but any such posts can be quickly closed. Those who truly revel in trolling and sealioning are dealt with in other ways. I think the ATMB forum and its intended purposes are useful and important.

I agree... the mods are human, and can/do make mistakes, both in determining infractions and penalizing those infractions, and pointing those out and inviting debate about them gets us all to a better set of rules we all agree to.

After all, while it's not a democracy exactly, it isn't a totally top-down endeavor either, and we, the moderated do and should have some say in how that moderation is accomplished.

CairoCarol 01-24-2020 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wolfpup (Post 22098153)
Even if an objection has no merit, explaining that fact -- which is often done by regular posters as well as mods -- helps others, especially the OP and new joins, understand the board culture better.

Exactly. I have plenty of sympathy for mods who have to take the time to patiently explain over and over why a particularly note or warning makes sense, but no one accepts the role of moderator here without knowing that responding to ATMB complaints is part of the deal.

Joey P 01-24-2020 11:58 AM

It also seems to me that your system would inventive not overturning warnings and notes. If a mod warned someone and they formally object to it, the mod gets a two for one deal by letting it stand.

filmore 01-24-2020 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joey P (Post 22098264)
It also seems to me that your system would inventive not overturning warnings and notes. If a mod warned someone and they formally object to it, the mod gets a two for one deal by letting it stand.

I've never thought of the mods being vindictive like that. And in any case if they were, acting like that in ATMB would likely lead to the mod's expulsion as a mod. I would suspect the board members would be very vocal if a mod was acting that way and the admins would take action.

Joey P 01-24-2020 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filmore (Post 22098334)
I've never thought of the mods being vindictive like that. And in any case if they were, acting like that in ATMB would likely lead to the mod's expulsion as a mod. I would suspect the board members would be very vocal if a mod was acting that way and the admins would take action.

I feel like you should take the same attitude towards the posters as well. Most of them/us aren't inundating the mods with requests to have warnings and notes overturned and the ones that are getting that many warnings/notes and constantly trying to get them overturned can be dealt with under other rules that won't hurt the rest of us.

What this rule does is turn every ATMB thread about a warning/note into a game of double or nothing.

It should be noted that as much as I prefer rules to be mostly clearly defined. I don't like rules created and applied to an entire group because of the actions of a single person. It's like your boss telling all the employees that they can no longer use their cell phones at work, but we all know it's because of those two people that are never not playing with theirs.

Exapno Mapcase 01-24-2020 12:56 PM

While we're at it, I propose that anyone who takes a case to an Appeals Court and gets turned down should be strung up by their thumbs until the Supreme Court overturns the ruling.

Tamerlane 01-24-2020 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Teuton (Post 22098245)
Allowing people to bitch about warnings in the Pit would be a mistake.

Eh, people used to do it all the time when it was still allowed. It got tedious sometimes( often ), just like bitching in here gets tedious sometimes( often ). But I can't say the board ran much worse, particularly. It was just different.

But yeah, I agree with others that this proposal is a solution in search of a problem.

Unreconstructed Man 01-24-2020 01:18 PM

Stupid idea

MrDibble 01-24-2020 01:48 PM

We have too few mods as it is, and the OP's solution (to a non-existent problem, I might add) is to make more work for mods? Naah. The OP's idea is bad and they should feel bad for having it.

Cheesesteak 01-24-2020 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrDibble (Post 22098533)
We have too few mods as it is, and the OP's solution (to a non-existent problem, I might add) is to make more work for mods?

They'll be OK with it if we double their pay.

TruCelt 01-24-2020 01:58 PM

What are we, Nazi Germany? (Sorry, the Godwinian suspense was killing me.)

As annoying as they may be to the Mods (and I note that I haven't seen a Mod say so) I have often seen a lot of good come from these threads. Rules that made no sense to me get explored and explained. Important guidelines are delineated and minority points of view are expounded upon. I find them pretty interesting and tend to read them closely.

John DiFool 01-24-2020 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wolfpup (Post 22098153)
You're proposing a solution for a problem that doesn't exist. The ability to discuss moderation, including objecting to warnings, is one of the unique features of this board that makes it a better place. Many sites strictly prohibit any discussion or criticism of moderation, leaving moderators full scope for bias and capriciousness with zero accountability.

I will hand it to the mod system here. In many of the other boards I frequent, NO warnings or bannings are announced formally, people all of a sudden have a new tag next to their name, with absolutely no explanation. In these same boards (+ others), protesting a warning gets you additional demerits, as does asking why your friend has suddenly been banned. I find such secretive underhanded hijinks to be hugely annoying, utterly pointless, and defeating the whole purpose of having any sort of discipline system in place to begin with.

Omar Little 01-24-2020 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filmore (Post 22097959)
It could be that they lose the ability to post in the forum where they got the warning for a certain amount of time or something like that.

This should be the penalty for starting debate threads and losing the debate.
And for asking a General Question, that could be easily answered with a simple google search.
And for lame pittings.

Atamasama 01-24-2020 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filmore (Post 22097959)
While it's okay to discuss board moderation in a general aspect, I think it's detrimental for the board's culture for people who get a warning to then start a thread in ATMB to complain about the warning.

I disagree with this statement which makes the rest of the suggestion moot.

Atamasama 01-24-2020 04:57 PM

Giving this more thought, I think this suggestion is unnecessary also because there is already a penalty for protesting a warning in ATMB.

Firstly, you’re highlighting your warning and inviting anyone and everyone to comment on it, opening yourself up to criticism and potentially harming your reputation (if you have one to harm). I’d rather let a warning go with no response other than “sorry, won’t happen again” for that reason alone, unless I felt it was particularly incorrect or confusing.

Secondly, by defending the behavior that led to the warning you’re demonstrating that you are likely to repeat it. If I made a slip in a thread and was warned not to do it again or risk suspension, and didn’t reply or apologized then that shows acceptance. If I protest, then it increases the likelihood that I might do it again. If mods are trying to establish whether I will be a habitual problem and should be banned then logically they should factor that in.

Finally, it’s possible that in protesting the warning I might reoffend. For example, in a conversation about cultural preference for hair colors I go on a rant about blondes being stupid. I get warned, and start an ATMB thread to defend myself by insisting that my statement was factual and as evidence I begin listing various blonde people I find to be stupid. That’s just digging the hole deeper.

So essentially, there’s no need to create penalties for these protest threads because there already are penalties, just not formal ones.

Joey P 01-24-2020 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atamasama (Post 22098941)
Giving this more thought, I think this suggestion is unnecessary also because there is already a penalty for protesting a warning in ATMB.

Firstly, youíre highlighting your warning and inviting anyone and everyone to comment on it, opening yourself up to criticism and potentially harming your reputation (if you have one to harm). Iíd rather let a warning go with no response other than ďsorry, wonít happen againĒ for that reason alone, unless I felt it was particularly incorrect or confusing.

Secondly, by defending the behavior that led to the warning youíre demonstrating that you are likely to repeat it. If I made a slip in a thread and was warned not to do it again or risk suspension, and didnít reply or apologized then that shows acceptance. If I protest, then it increases the likelihood that I might do it again. If mods are trying to establish whether I will be a habitual problem and should be banned then logically they should factor that in.

Finally, itís possible that in protesting the warning I might reoffend. For example, in a conversation about cultural preference for hair colors I go on a rant about blondes being stupid. I get warned, and start an ATMB thread to defend myself by insisting that my statement was factual and as evidence I begin listing various blonde people I find to be stupid. Thatís just digging the hole deeper.

So essentially, thereís no need to create penalties for these protest threads because there already are penalties, just not formal ones.

I think you're missing the point of protesting a warning or note. It's not an admission of guilt, it's explaining to the mod in question that you didn't deserve the warning because you didn't break a rule. What you're speaking about is like going to traffic court to explain to the judge why you were driving so fast. On the other hand, questioning a warning here is more akin to going to traffic court to explain to the judge that you weren't speeding at all and you shouldn't have received the speeding ticket in the first place.

Senegoid 01-24-2020 05:31 PM

The mods should implement a totally randomized process for mod notes and warnings. They could decide upon some parameters, like maybe 1 post (statistically) out of 100 should get a mod note, and 1 out of 500 should get a warning. Then use random-number generators to determine which posts get those.

Bannings likewise could be done entirely by a randomized lottery, like in that short story by Shirley Jackson. This would be as fair and unbiased as can be, and totally uncontestable. (Which isn't even all that radical a proposal, as bannings are already uncontestable as it is.)

This would entirely eliminate any suspicion or appearance of bias on the part of the mods. For example, the politically conservative posters on this board, who sometimes complain of an anti-conservative bias, could be assured that they are treated as fairly as anyone.

The process could even be entirely automated with robomods. Rather than increase the workload of the live moderators (if any remain), this would certainly lighten their duties considerably.

Do Not Taunt 01-24-2020 05:48 PM

A few people have made the assumption that the sanction for challenging a warning and losing is another warning. But that isn't how it needs to work. If you challenge the call of Incomplete Pass and lose, you aren't penalized with another incomplete pass!

So here's what we do. If you challenge and lose, you lose one of your friends. You don't choose - they're lost at random. You're never allowed to make friends with that particular poster again. If you do not have any friends, you are not allowed to challenge any warnings until you make one. Finally, a use for the board's silliest feature!

kanicbird 01-24-2020 06:00 PM

From my protesting my warning, which I believe was not overturned, there was a benefit that came out of it. More mods are highlighting their warnings in red text, which makes it much harder to simply miss and easier to follow mod's instructions.

Frank Burly 01-24-2020 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tamerlane (Post 22098399)
Eh, people used to do it all the time when it was still allowed. It got tedious sometimes( often ), just like bitching in here gets tedious sometimes( often ). But I can't say the board ran much worse, particularly. It was just different.

But yeah, I agree with others that this proposal is a solution in search of a problem.

Why was the rule changed?

Joey P 01-24-2020 08:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank Burly (Post 22099116)
Why was the rule changed?

IIRC, due to pit rules (or lack thereof) those threads got really, really vile.

I think there was an attempt to 'fix' that which led to a bunch of confusion and eventually threads discussion mod actions were to be started in ATMB and kept considerably more civil.

Tamerlane 01-24-2020 09:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank Burly (Post 22099116)
Why was the rule changed?

It was part of a wider attempt by the former head administrator to try and "Marquis of Queensberry" up the place. It was also a very contentious change - there were staff resignations, angry flounces, splinter communities generated and all sorts of related sturm and drang that emerged from the whole thing.

The rules against bad language in the Pit( soon kinda eeled around and more recently mostly rescinded )attracted the most heat, but there were and are definitely folks that preferred to be able to rip moderators a new one over shitty mod calls. I was always pretty neutral on that myself. But even though it didn't impact me much the language-policing in the Pit as installed back then was pretty bullshit IMHO. Thankfully the worst of that is now gone.

Moriarty 01-24-2020 10:20 PM

I think the OP is right: If you protest a warning and it’s not overturned, you lose a timeout.

Senegoid 01-25-2020 12:33 AM

We've all got plenty of time-outs around here and we'd love to lose them. I want to protest some warnings so I'll lose some of those time-outs.

Atamasama 01-25-2020 12:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joey P (Post 22098947)
I think you're missing the point of protesting a warning or note. It's not an admission of guilt, it's explaining to the mod in question that you didn't deserve the warning because you didn't break a rule. What you're speaking about is like going to traffic court to explain to the judge why you were driving so fast. On the other hand, questioning a warning here is more akin to going to traffic court to explain to the judge that you weren't speeding at all and you shouldn't have received the speeding ticket in the first place.

Often the people protesting the warning or note are missing the point. I see people doubling down on the same behavior more than once. In effect, many times they are saying they were speeding but had a good reason for it.

Just look here:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...d.php?t=888777
Thatís one of the latest protests and they practically admitted to trolling in the process of arguing they werenít trolling. Itís not at all unusual.

kopek 01-25-2020 08:32 AM

OK but it needs being said

https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/001ee2e...6-d2498122ab31

Joey P 01-25-2020 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atamasama (Post 22099547)
Often the people protesting the warning or note are missing the point. I see people doubling down on the same behavior more than once. In effect, many times they are saying they were speeding but had a good reason for it.

Just look here:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...d.php?t=888777
Thatís one of the latest protests and they practically admitted to trolling in the process of arguing they werenít trolling. Itís not at all unusual.

That's sort of what I'm getting at. The OP is attempting to stop a certain subset of posters from contesting every mod action directed at them. However, that's a pretty wide net to cast and it's going to cause problems for a lot of other people.

I'm not saying the problem doesn't exist, I'm saying that we don't need a solution for it. What the mods currently do seems to work just fine.

Horatio Hellpop 01-25-2020 10:46 AM

A lot of times, a moderator will post "Poster X has been banned" and listed all the times in the past the poster has been warned, so it's not as if letting an unjustified warning stand has no consequences.

If a specific poster starts a lot of threads about "I want to protest my warning," yeah, that's excessive, but I don't see that often enough to think something needs to be done.

Jonathan Chance 01-25-2020 11:08 AM

Yeah, I wouldn't support that change if my fellow mods proposed it.

I think one of the strengths of the SDMB is that feedback - polite feedback - is allowed in terms of protesting and discussing moderation decisions and policies. And sometimes things to get changed and policies remade. It's not often but it does happen.

I've seen other fora where moderation is both draconian and non-appealable. That's really not something we want to encourage. I'd prefer to have the back-and-forth - even if it's sometimes testy - and see those gains and refinements happen over time.

Of course, it appears that Trump may just be able to handle things better and draft recalcitrant moderators into the service. So we got that going for us.

Atamasama 01-25-2020 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joey P (Post 22099877)
That's sort of what I'm getting at. The OP is attempting to stop a certain subset of posters from contesting every mod action directed at them. However, that's a pretty wide net to cast and it's going to cause problems for a lot of other people.

I'm not saying the problem doesn't exist, I'm saying that we don't need a solution for it. What the mods currently do seems to work just fine.

Agreed 100%.

Spectre of Pithecanthropus 01-25-2020 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tamerlane (Post 22098399)
Quote:

Allowing people to bitch about warnings in the Pit would be a mistake.
Eh, people used to do it all the time when it was still allowed. It got tedious sometimes( often ), just like bitching in here gets tedious sometimes( often ). But I can't say the board ran much worse, particularly. It was just different.

But yeah, I agree with others that this proposal is a solution in search of a problem.

When I joined, just before the turn of the century, the Pit was the designated forum for complaints and questions about specific moderator actions. One problem with that arrangement was that other posters could just pile on against the OP if they were feeling particularly snarky, because the Pit tends to foster that kind of behavior.

IMHO moving moderation-related discussions to ATMB was the right thing to do, and it's a good reason we can even have such conversations, unlike most other message boards.

Spectre of Pithecanthropus 01-25-2020 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joey P (Post 22099271)
IIRC, due to pit rules (or lack thereof) those threads got really, really vile.

Did they ever.

When I was still new around here I innocently questioned the closure of a thread I had started. I really wanted to know, and what I also didn't really know yet was the way things work around here. Some Other Poster, who I don't think is around anymore, jumped in with such insulting and aggressive language that I felt like I'd stepped on a rake.

BigT 01-26-2020 03:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filmore (Post 22098334)
I've never thought of the mods being vindictive like that. And in any case if they were, acting like that in ATMB would likely lead to the mod's expulsion as a mod. I would suspect the board members would be very vocal if a mod was acting that way and the admins would take action.

How would anyone know? The mod wouldn't admit that's what they were doing. They might not even realize it themselves. There would be no proof.

Plus I've never in my history of posting seen a mod who was fired because posters complained about them. And I am aware of mods being fired, even though they always say they are "stepping down." You can tell the difference.

I could see proposing that those who contest disingenuouly get moderated, as I suggested before. On the other hand, I know that it's easy to be biased towards thinking that everyone is disingenuous. (I've even been accused of such, and everyone knows I do not lie.) So it's better that the mods err on the side of not punishing them.

Being able to contest Warnings is a good thing. You don't want a chilling effect where people would be afraid to contest even when they have a good reason.

Jackmannii 01-26-2020 11:07 PM

The penalty for denied protests and general whining should be an insulting smilie that appears next to your username for a designated period.

And moderators should be allowed to have an appropriate number of scalps or similar smilies next to their usernames to designate how many posters they've banned. Sort of like fighter pilots had for the number of enemy planes they shot down.

kopek 01-27-2020 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jackmannii (Post 22102616)
And moderators should be allowed to have an appropriate number of scalps or similar smilies next to their usernames to designate how many posters they've banned. Sort of like fighter pilots had for the number of enemy planes they shot down.

If you included bots and spammers in that a couple of them would need the entire screen just for their "hit parade". :D

Colibri 01-27-2020 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kopek (Post 22104019)
If you included bots and spammers in that a couple of them would need the entire screen just for their "hit parade". :D

engineer_comp_geek is the current banmeister with at least 11,763 spammers (actually many more, since some of the posts document multiple spammers), 223 socks, and 118 others. So you would need a 60-page thread just to list them all.:)

Helena330 01-27-2020 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Colibri (Post 22104118)
engineer_comp_geek is the current banmeister with at least 11,763 spammers (actually many more, since some of the posts document multiple spammers), 223 socks, and 118 others. So you would need a 60-page thread just to list them all.:)

Freaking superhero numbers! Wow!

Jonathan Chance 01-27-2020 06:27 PM

Truly, a mod among mods.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:38 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.