There is no rule against discussing a banning of a long-term member from the viewpoint of the reasons for the banning or questioning the decision of the administration.
The general reasons for closing a thread regarding a banning are:
It has degenerated into a bashfest of the bannee. Since the bannee can’t respond in his or her own defense, it is considered the fair thing to do.
The bannee was a short-term sock or troll. Such threads are closed in order not to allow them any further attention, which is what they were after in the first place.
Bannings of long-term members are announced in ATMB and the reasons are given there. Those who wish to dispute these reasons are free to do so. Pit threads opened solely to gloat over the banning or disparage the bannee are generally closed.
Bannings of short-term socks and trolls are not announced; the user is merely disappeared, along with all posts if feasible. If you have a question about such a disappearance e-mail a moderator.
This would be a good idea. It gets at a number of issues:
*1.People have different strengths and there are many who, frankly, are much better posters/members than they are mods. 2.It is weird and could be intimidating to newbies to tell a mod he is full of sh^t on a non-mod issue & 3.it leads to all kinds of (in my observation) false accusations about how mods are treating people who disagree with them. 4. I have long beat the dead horse that a mod sneaking moderator stuff into a thread isn’t done here as clearly as it might be.
*
Different names for Mods would be a great idea. Really, the idea of 1 person, 1 name is a Board Rule not something that Moses received on Mount Sinai … but then I am almost more with the line of thinking that socks can be useful & if not used to troll or break other board rules – which you guys will slap them on anyway- I think it actually would tend to make the board more exciting… it might screw up your stats for the advertisers though that might be a downside but is really the only HUGE one I can think of …
A standard case where a Member was banned for a clear-cut violation of the Rules turned into yet another 5-page clusterfuck of argument.
I’m in management in real life, and I’ve been told I’m a damn good manager, and damn good at handling angry multi-million dollar clients.
Hard to believe, I know. Here’s my opinion on how things need to change.
When a Member is banned, continue to start the thread in ATMB and lock it. That’s good practice, so keep it.
When the inevitable Pit thread starts, only one single Staff Member should respond to the thread - either an Administrator, or the person directly responsible for the banning. NO OTHER Moderators or Administrators should be responding in that thread, not even as “ordinary Members.” This will deliver a single, direct, unambiguous message, and there will be no confusion over whether or not folks are speaking as “Staff” or “Members”, and there will be no speculation by Staff on the exact reasons why an action was taken, which could be misinterpreted as confusion or disruption among the Staff.
If that single, designated person is not immediately available to respond, then tough shit - the Staff aren’t on call. Let the thread hang until that single person is available, and the rest of the Staff must not post in any capacity in the thread, except if further Rules violations occur in the thread which mandate action.
It’s standard practice for delivering and responding to unpleasant project or personnel news in some large corporations. One source, from the top, delivers the news, and the lower-level management waits until it’s delivered. It’s often called the “Moses Strategy” or “Great White Father Strategy” (hey, I didn’t make it up), and it can be very useful for…demographics…like the SDMB.
Think about it - kick it over to Ed, too.
[sub](on preview, I see that the poster above me posted the word “Moses”…how uncanny)[/sub]
You could start a new membership for Jackboot Sock, with the password shared among all the Moderators, and use it for “Official Moderator Actions” only. The small pain in the butt from changing your log in, and then logging back to your regular user name is there, but the overhead in multiple accounts is eliminated.
Gives you a good way to check just how many warnings someone has, too.
The staff may end of talking about this idea later, but I’m against it. I think it’d be intellectually dishonest to pretend we’re different people when we’re moderating from when we’re posting. We’re human beings who have to make judgment calls sometimes and I think it’s better if we are upfront about it.
Considering the fact that mods receive no monetary compensation for their services here makes unnecessary restrictions not worthwhile in my opinion. They just need to be given the latitude and respect they need to carry out their duties without too much interference. The constant pitting of mods and their actions devalues their role as authority figures on the whole. Going over their heads is unnecessary in all but the most extreme cases and talk of it should be quelled. Remember they keep they assholes out of our hair for the most part and that’s the way I like it. I might tease one every once in a while but its done with respect. I don’t tend to make a lot of jokes with my bosses but some have that kind of sense of humor that invites a certain amount of goofing around.
If that is true why the fuck are you still here? And keep your bullshit on the board, don’t send me any more PMs full of your craziness. In fact, just don’t PM me again. If you must say something you are welcome to post it publicly.
Allow me to throw out a few points (and I’m only going to respond/discuss with Staff on this, so it doesn’t become another “avatar” discussion).
Members here have extreme difficulty telling when a Moderator is posting as a Moderator and when they’re just posting. They’re fixated on the title, and that trumps all other reason or logic (note as well the events that led to SDSAB titles being changed to this unwieldy long thing.) Having a single voice in that one thread delivering a single message removes ambiguity. All we have to do is look back over the last 10 years of the Pit to see that disputes over ambiguity, or perceived ambiguity, is rife.
This should make your jobs easier. One might see them as “restrictions”, but I see them as “removing the implied responsibility to jump into the trainwreck and making life easier.” You no longer need to worry about arguing or explaining about a banning. One voice, one message, one story to tell. The other Mods go about their business and just don’t need to worry about any banning dispute. And it’s because of the fact that these things do come down to judgment calls that you need that single message, delivered directly from the person who made the decision - or from an Administrator.
While it’s an open point whether the current strategy is not working from an interpersonal standpoint, I know for a fact that the strategy I’ve outlined can work quite well, especially in the real life analogy of employee terminations.
What I propose creates less work, creates less ambiguity, and creates less opportunity for Members to jump in and split hairs and look for nuances on every single Moderator post in a Pit thread about a banned Member to play “gotcha ya!.” And note that I’m not saying all Moderator actions need to do this, only the bannings. Try it just for that, and see how it works out. What have you got to lose? Is it likely that “why was enormous asshole X banned” threads would be any worse than they typically are? (those are rhetorical questions)
And most importantly, the fact that the suggestion comes from me should not make it any less valuable. I do have a long personal experience managing large numbers of intelligent, argumentative, often assholic people IRL, where a lot more is at stake than just words on a message board or a $15 membership. It’s not a perfect solution (what is? When we find it, will we know?) but I really think it’s an appropriate one.
Discuss amongst yourselves, and ask Ed what he thinks.
Hey, what’s up chickenshit? Something you wanted to say? Spit it out punk! I’ll bet your all show and no go in real life just like here. Probably look down your nose at almost everyone you meet. Sorry for the hijack mods, but chickenshit couldn’t just reply to my PM like a man he had to try to garner support for his hatefull narrow ass.I sent you a PM out of respect but your not having any of it are you. Not real surprised. I just *thought * you were a man. Why don’t you open a pit thread and say whatever you like hotshot? Or do you have the balls of a hummingbird? Well just put this crap to rest forever, shall we? I’ll talk to you later if you can muster the balls for it. It’s family time now.Punk.
Actually I had just noticed a PM from him full of the crazy and just posted my comment when I noticed him posting. You are right, maybe this was not the best place for it…
Well, he’s sort of serious, except that he’s also conceded that he really has no fucking clue whether it was Wee Bairn or not, and just threw that name out there because it seemed like it might be him.
I hate to drag this enlightened discourse into the realm of an actual good idea, but: How about a new login for each Mod that says (e.g.) Giraffe: Moderator, or Moderator Marley23, for use only when actually moderating?
