Rule for Mods/Admins suggestion

About This Message Board
1

I was catching up on the Tubadiva/**catsix ** Pit thread, and read this post from **Zoe **;

[QUOTE=Zoe]
New rule suggestion: Moderators and Administrators may not use a thinly disguised threat of banning as a personal insult.

In other words, threats of banning would need to be in context to an offense. Moderators and Administrators shouldn’t make veiled threats at all and must account for them. Rank hath it privileges, but with it comes accountibility also.

It really does leave a bad taste in my mouth for a mod to be creepy. If you are pissed off, at least be straight-forward about it. Don’t be a jerk.
[/QUOTE]

This seems like an excellent idea, to me. Mods of course have difficulties with insults, since they have two hats to wear - their mod hat, and their poster hat. Wearing their mod hat, they ban/suspend, issue warnings, and involve themselves in board matters. With their poster hats on, they involve themselves in talking about random crap, arguing, and insulting like the rest of us - personal issues.

Issuing a threat of banning crosses those lines. Note I don’t mean saying “this is a warning for breaking the rules” - that’s fine, and is purely mod hat business. But “I don’t like you, and I’ll be extra vigilant for a chance to see you leave”* is a personal attack with the poster’s hat on that threatens the use of mod power.

It’s understood that we are not allowed to attack mods personally for mod hat work, but only their posts/acts as a poster. It seems only fair to me that since we are unable to attack mod actions on a personal level that mods should not be allowed to use mod actions/power as a personal threat.

Any chance of getting this rule added to the Big Secret Mod Book of Rules?

*I’m not saying this is what happened in the Tuba/catsix case. This is a completely seperate example.

2

The scenario as posited is not something that happens here.

We can’t even as much as counsel someone without citing the offense against posted rules.

We can’t issue a formal warning without that cite either.

We cannot ban anyone without good and sufficient reason . . . actually, mostly it’s more like overwhelming evidence, as we do try to counsel before we warn, to work with problem posters to get them to modify their behavior before we get out the big stick of warnings. And we work equally hard to turn situations around before we contemplate removing someone from the board as a nuisance.

Banning is nearly always a last resort when everything else has failed, the exceptions to that being 1) spammers and 2) anyone attempting or threatening to hack the board. For those two offenses we do move swiftly, but again, there must be evidence, can’t just happen because one of us says so and then hits the button.

We have to prove that good and sufficient reason to our fellow staffers as well as the rest of the community; that in itself is tremendous protection against any potential harassment of members.

In fact, if anything, we go too far the other way sometimes; we have let situations drag on when we should have hit the button sooner and removed the burr from under the collective saddle.

So how can we threaten anything? “I’m going to ban you for not following the rules.” Not without evidence.

3

[QUOTE=TubaDiva]
The scenario as posited is not something that happens here.

We can’t even as much as counsel someone without citing the offense against posted rules.

We can’t issue a formal warning without that cite either.

We cannot ban anyone without good and sufficient reason . . . actually, mostly it’s more like overwhelming evidence, as we do try to counsel before we warn, to work with problem posters to get them to modify their behavior before we get out the big stick of warnings. And we work equally hard to turn situations around before we contemplate removing someone from the board as a nuisance.

Banning is nearly always a last resort when everything else has failed, the exceptions to that being 1) spammers and 2) anyone attempting or threatening to hack the board. For those two offenses we do move swiftly, but again, there must be evidence, can’t just happen because one of us says so and then hits the button.

We have to prove that good and sufficient reason to our fellow staffers as well as the rest of the community; that in itself is tremendous protection against any potential harassment of members.

In fact, if anything, we go too far the other way sometimes; we have let situations drag on when we should have hit the button sooner and removed the burr from under the collective saddle.

So how can we threaten anything? “I’m going to ban you for not following the rules.” Not without evidence.
[/QUOTE]

All that being understood, and mind you, I’m only asking here since

A) it is relevant to the question as asked, and
B) you’ve not responded to my pit thread on the subject;

Just what was it you would like to promise catsix in this

[quote]
(http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7299162&postcount=188):

Because honestly, I can only read it as a threat of banning or suspension, which you’ve just clarified is “not something that happens here,” or another type of threat which you know very well is against the rules.

4

Thanks for the response, Tuba, but I don’t think i’ve got across what I mean very well; the whole mod/poster roles are very confusing. Let me use some examples - I think the situation you’re thinking of goes like this;

Poster: says something that doesn’t actually break a rule, but is mean towards a mod
Mod:Mod Hat You’re banned.

That’s not what I mean - as you point out, Mods require rulebreaking (or the poster being a spammer, etc) before they can ban; this decision would probably be rescinded. I don’t see any reason for a new rule to be brought in here. The situation i’m talking about, though, is slightly different.

Mod: I like blue.
Poster: Please! Blue is so overrated. Only idiots like Blue.
Mod: Moron. Blue is a great colour. You’re an asshole.

Assuming this conversation takes place in the Pit, then it’s fine. The mod is acting solely as a poster, and the poster only attacks the mod’s actions as a poster. Here’s where the problem might be, though;

Mod: I like blue.
Poster: Please! Blue is so overrated. Only idiots like Blue.
Mod: Moron. Blue is a great colour. I look forward to seeing any reported posts by you.

Here, the poster is still only attacking the mod as a poster. But the mod is threatening the use of their mod power as a personal attack; they are not actually banning/suspending the poster (if they were, it would be stopped by the other mods), but they are threatening to do so. That’s going to make the poster a lot more wary about ever attacking a mod-as-poster in the future - it sends the message that “mods can attack posters while wearing their mod hat”, something that certainly seems unfair as the reverse is not allowed.

There’s been some confusion before as to when and at what times we members are allowed to insult mods personally. It’s been made clear that we’re allowed to treat mods as any other poster unless some mod-hat-wearing action is involved. I just would like to make sure that the reverse holds true, too; that mods cannot use their power as mods, or threaten to use their power, in a personal attack wearing their poster-hat. It would clearly be an abuse of power.

5

The staff of this board provides a level of service to every member and guest that is not dependent upon personal consideration.

We must rise above whatever we might feel as human beings, as members of the community, as ourselves, to serve the greater cause.

We must do this even when we have deep philosophical/moral disagreement with others and without regard to what we consider personally objectionable and offensive. This is not always so easy and we are not always 100% perfect at it. But by and large we make it.

Staffers can’t threaten anyone into good or bad behavior; you always have choice and semi free will. We can encourage people to make better choices, we can give them options, we can tell them the rules. How you perceive that and what you do with it is up to you.

Warnings, suspensions, bannings are not dropped on people like falling safes from out of the blue; we don’t run people over and throw them off the board. They come following bad behavior and as the direct consequences of the choices of the individual. How else could it be?

6

[QUOTE=TubaDiva]
The staff of this board provides a level of service to every member and guest that is not dependent upon personal consideration.

We must rise above whatever we might feel as human beings, as members of the community, as ourselves, to serve the greater cause.

We must do this even when we have deep philosophical/moral disagreement with others and without regard to what we consider personally objectionable and offensive. This is not always so easy and we are not always 100% perfect at it. But by and large we make it.

Staffers can’t threaten anyone into good or bad behavior; you always have choice and semi free will. We can encourage people to make better choices, we can give them options, we can tell them the rules. How you perceive that and what you do with it is up to you.

Warnings, suspensions, bannings are not dropped on people like falling safes from out of the blue; we don’t run people over and throw them off the board. They come following bad behavior and as the direct consequences of the choices of the individual. How else could it be?
[/QUOTE]
Tuba, much as I like you, you are purposely avoiding a specific question posited to you. Do you intend to answer it?

7

Asking for 100% mental objectivity from mods is about the same as asking for world peace. No one can insult someone (whether or not an insult was made to
Tubadiva by catsix doesn’t matter for this issue) and expect that person to be totally objective when it comes time to decide whether to ban them or not.

If you don’t like Tubadiva expressing her bias out loud, when she has no power to carry it out without providing evidence of an offence from a certain poster, then you are just being naïve. You are assuming that the bias should not exist when there is no possible way it can’t exist.

According to what Tubadiva said earlier in her post here, her “threat” to catsix was an empty threat at best, since she can not ban her without providing evidence that **catsix ** broke the rules.

8

[QUOTE=Lakai]
According to what Tubadiva said earlier in her post here, her “threat” to catsix was an empty threat at best, since she can not ban her without providing evidence that **catsix ** broke the rules.
[/QUOTE]

And the entire point of this thread is to ask whether a rule can be implemented to keep moderators from making empty or veiled threats that are not directly related to official warnings, which, by your own admission is what Tuba has done here.

Do you really advocate this behavior? No one is saying Mods and Admins are not entitled to their own bias. But I think we all agree that it should not interfere with their duties on the boards, and they should not use threat of official mod/admin priveleges such as banning against what is in essence a personal issue. Tuba can get pissed off until she’s blue in the face at any one of us and call us any name under the sun, but the second she implies that because she doesn’t like us she might do something to us in an official capacity, then she’s crossed a line.

9

I guess I don’t see why this is read as a threat of banning. Using “dishonest words” or having “overall nasty ways” are not, ipso facto, grounds for banning. I read this pretty much like I would from any poster: “I’d like to promise you’ll roast forever in hellfires, with devils toasting marshmellows on your simmering carcase” comes to mind.

10

[QUOTE=C K Dexter Haven]
I guess I don’t see why this is read as a threat of banning. Using “dishonest words” or having “overall nasty ways” are not, ipso facto, grounds for banning. I read this pretty much like I would from any poster: “I’d like to promise you’ll roast forever in hellfires, with devils toasting marshmellows on your simmering carcase” comes to mind.
[/QUOTE]

Then why would she fail to answer my question? I asked it rather straightforwardly, and she (obviously, since she replied after my post) had ample opportunity to explain, if, indeed it was so simple.

Maybe you’re right. I hope you’re right.

But I don’t think you’re right.

(I also don’t think we’ll find out, if you’re not right)

11

By the way, **C K ** (or any other mods), do you have any thoughts on this rule?

12

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
By the way, **C K ** (or any other mods), do you have any thoughts on this rule?
[/QUOTE]

I believe you’re addressing a problem that doesn’t exist. I am likely the most intemperate of the current mods, and I’ve never made such a threat in my posts as a poster. I agree with Dex that that comment should be read as an expression of disgust rather than a veiled threat; do you have any other examples?

13

[QUOTE=XJETGIRLX]
and they should not use threat of official mod/admin priveleges such as banning against what is in essence a personal issue.
[/QUOTE]

If it is an empty threat, then why not?

14

[QUOTE=Frank]
I believe you’re addressing a problem that doesn’t exist. I am likely the most intemperate of the current mods, and I’ve never made such a threat in my posts as a poster. I agree with Dex that that comment should be read as an expression of disgust rather than a veiled threat; do you have any other examples?
[/QUOTE]

Nope. And I wouldn’t consider Tuba’s case an example to start with, myself (though clearly others do). It just seemed like a good idea; maybe it doesn’t solve a current problem, but it might be a good prevention. And it might help to more clearly outline to us members what we can and can’t expect from the mods.

15

[QUOTE=Lakai]
If it is an empty threat, then why not?
[/QUOTE]
Same reason we’re not allowed to threaten to kill another poster. They’re empty threats, too.

16

[QUOTE=C K Dexter Haven]
I guess I don’t see why this is read as a threat of banning. Using “dishonest words” or having “overall nasty ways” are not, ipso facto, grounds for banning. I read this pretty much like I would from any poster: “I’d like to promise you’ll roast forever in hellfires, with devils toasting marshmellows on your simmering carcase” comes to mind.
[/QUOTE]

Ok, but now can you give an example of what Tubadiva meant that doesn’t violate the forum rule against advocating violence? :dubious:

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
Same reason we’re not allowed to threaten to kill another poster. They’re empty threats, too.
[/QUOTE]

What reason would that be?

I still would not care for a rule that would stop a mod from throwing a lame threats towards me. I just do not see its purpose.

17

[QUOTE=Lakai]
What reason would that be?
[/quote]

I don’t know, actually. But we’re not allowed to make death threats against other posters, which are certainly empty threats.

Fair enough. I’d be for that too - but only if we could insult the mods back for their mod actions. I don’t want to do so myself, but it seems only fair that we have that option.

The problem for me is that a mod making personal threats of using their power, whether they can carry them out or not, is an abuse of mod power. They can make as many empty threats as posters as they want, but once they bring their mod status into it it’s a reminder that they have power over us; that the different rules for mods-as-mods and mods-as-posters, which are entirely reasonable, can be safely ignored by them when they feel like it. We are held to those standards, while they are not.

18

[QUOTE=C K Dexter Haven]
I guess I don’t see why this is read as a threat of banning. Using “dishonest words” or having “overall nasty ways” are not, ipso facto, grounds for banning. I read this pretty much like I would from any poster: “I’d like to promise you’ll roast forever in hellfires, with devils toasting marshmellows on your simmering carcase” comes to mind.
[/QUOTE]

Well, if your interpretation is correct, then she wished death on catsix (can’t have a carcass without a dead body. ) and should be suspended. :wink:

That said, c’mon Dex.. What’s she going to “overlook” and in what context if NOT as a mod? I don’t understand how you can you read her comment that way. Your interpretation sorta covers the first sentence (“There’s much I’d like to promise you for your dishonest words and your overall nasty ways.”) I suppose, but the second sentence is “I promise you I’ll try to overlook all that.”

In what possible context except as a mod/admin is she going to try to “overlook” Catsix’s “dishonest…nasty” behavior when she’s saying it with her mod hat on? No, she didn’t say the magic words “mod hat on”, but she was answering a question about the promised upcoming features of the board and making what amounts to a sales-pitch for the board using info that she could only get as a official here. Giraffe did a whole “Let’s discuss rules for the Pit” thread without ‘officially’ putting on his mod hat in many (most?) posts, yet he was clearly acting as an agent of the board, not a poster. Ditto here.

Geezus you guys. This has spun into how goddamned many threads and right before subscription time–this can’t be good for anyone here or the boards. ALL of this could have been avoided by Tuba saying a quick “I’m sorry you didn’t feel like you got what you were promised Catsix, and you’re right, regardless of my perception of your attitude, I was out of line to make veiled threats (or imply veiled threats, whatever) when responding to a customer concern. I apologize.”

19

[QUOTE=Fenris]
Geezus you guys. This has spun into how goddamned many threads and right before subscription time–this can’t be good for anyone here or the boards. ALL of this could have been avoided by Tuba saying a quick “I’m sorry you didn’t feel like you got what you were promised Catsix, and you’re right, regardless of my perception of your attitude, I was out of line to make veiled threats (or imply veiled threats, whatever) when responding to a customer concern. I apologize.”
[/QUOTE]

Ummmm…
Ha…
HA!

HAHAHAHAHA!!!
Never happen.

20

[QUOTE=Xploder]
Ummmm…
Ha…
HA!

HAHAHAHAHA!!!
Never happen.
[/QUOTE]

Do you really think that an apology from Tubadiva is that much out of the question? Judging from how much press this issue has generated from the fact that she did not apologize, and has ignored the issue since, I would say that nearly everyone expected her to apologize.

I thought she would apologize right after it was clear that her comments were being misinterpreted (in her opinion) and would set the record straight at least. I was surprised when she didn’t after some time has past, but I would not go as far as to say it would never happen.