MODERATOR NOTE: This is wrong on two many levels. First, I assume that the term you meant was “Former Mod” or “Retired Mod” or “Mod Emeritus,” and this was a typo. Because otherwise, you’re engaged in name-calling which is (in this instance) a personal insult that would get you an Official Warning. If you want to do name-calling, go to the Pit forum.
Second, you are incorrect, we DO encourage people to report rules violations. Let the mods make the decisions about whether they really are rules violations, whether they are minor or significant, whether actions need to be taken.
No, I meant exactly what I said. Thankyou for granting me the benefit of the doubt, but in this case it wasn’t necessary, and if you feel the need to take further action based on the literal reading of my post you should do so.
I’m a bit confused - i thought “junior modding” was telling posters how to post and how not to post - and not so much saying “let the mods handle any complaints you might have.” It soundsto me like “see something, say something.”
“See something, say something” may kinda sorta sound like it came from a mod, but it is something I hear on a frequent basis at my school. Someone saying it - to me - doesn’t sound like the person is “junior campus policing” but rather acting as a member of a community.
In other words, i don’t see “report something” as a moddy type of statement. " Don’t do that, or there will be consequences" is a moddy sort of statement.
Do I have the wrong end of the stick in terms of junior modding?
Posters may hold their own individual opinions of the rules here, including the written rules in the registration agreement, the rules in the FAQs, the more informal “rules of the road” in each forum area, and the written evidence of how the moderation staff handles situations.
However, that opinion is just that, a personally held opinion. Your interpretation may not be the same as the staff. If stated in a civil fashion you can even share it on the board, but it does not take the place of moderation decisions and does not have the weight of the rules.
As stated in the registration agreement:
Check that last part – “do not take it upon yourself to chastise others for perceived rule violations.” That’s junior modding, so yes, raventhief, you are correct.
Sad to say, we don’t see everything on this board. We can’t, there’s not enough hours in the day and we all have lives. (Or something that looks like a life.) We appreciate the assistance of the Teemiing Millions in bringing things to our attention that may have slipped past us as we were looking at something else. We’d rather get a bunch of reports on something rather than miss something because no one said anything.
There’s nothing wrong with banning those who are just racist pricks, trolls, misogynistic faptards and the other questionable carbon based life forms, but those who get caught up in the moment of heated arguments aren’t always bad members. They just need the little “break” from the that thread. They need a little help learning to put the keyboard down, take a walk, cool off and then return. Mod warnings often do nothing to cools someone down ESPECIALLY when they are, once in a great while, full of snark that’s worthy of a warning in and of itself.
Can’t someone who’s pushing the limit be locked from a thread or a forum instead of the board? If they break rules in one forum by doing things that are appropriate in another forum, why boot them from the entire board? I’m betting that’s been asked and answered, but what the heck, I’ll ask anyway.
No, they can’t. When I modded Great Debates I occasionally ordered people to stop posting in certain threads if they’d misbehaved, but if they had ignored me the only thing I could’ve done was suspend them. And I would’ve done that, but it would’ve been a very broad and temporary fix and I suspect other posters wouldn’t have liked that. It’s possible that could be done through the creation of special usergroups, but that’s labor-intensive and we’d have to get Jerry to do it every time. Even if we were technically able I’d argue it’s not even worth it.
Two reasons: one, in about 99% of cases that’s not what happens. In general, if you’re a jerk in one part of the board, you’re a jerk wherever you post, not just in one forum. The main exception is people who post exclusively (or almost exclusively) in one forum. And two, because it’s a bad idea to bend over backward to protect people who cause trouble. It usually makes more headaches for us and for the posters who get attacked or insulted, so it doesn’t make anything better.
If you rack up too many warnings and you’re Terr, you get suspended. If you rack up too many warnings and you’re Der Trihs, you get a pleading Mod Note.
I’m pretty sure Terr has received mod notes. Terr has more warnings than Der Trihs in a much shorter time as a member. I suspect that fact will only result in a different type of bias accusation, but c’est la vie.
A non-mod can’t cite that, obviously. I can tell you that Der Trihs received four warnings in 2013, and if you go back to late 2012 there’s a period where he got five in about 11 months. The mods discussed the situation at the time and I recall saying that he’d be suspended if that continued, which it didn’t.
The question is why Der Trihs reached four warnings and then the next response was to revert to Mod Notes. When Terr reached the same number of warnings, this didn’t happen.
There’s no such thing as a reversion to mod notes. Notes and warnings are both given out on a case-by-case basis as the mods deem appropriate. Terr has received mod notes as well as warnings.
Since there’s no magic number of warnings that will result in a suspension, the premise that the moderators changed their response based on the number of previous warnings and the identity of the poster fails. This doesn’t operate like points on your driver’s license.
That may be part of the problem. When Poster A got 6 warnings with no time out, and Poster B got 6 warnings and suspended, what’s the likelihood of Poster B feeling slighted by mod prejudice? It’s a tough question, but that inconsistency does shade the appearance of fairness in moderation. (no, I don’t think mods are prejudice towards any of the members, but I think the current procedure sometimes make it appear that way)
There’s a potential source of complaints regardless. If you institute automatic suspensions at set numbers of warnings, people will say you’re inflexible and that not all violations are equally serious. If you decide things on a case by case basis, people say it’s arbitrary. I do think we’re right to base things on patterns of behavior rather than making up numbers. It would be hard to come up with reasonable numbers anyway- you’d need a period of time as well as a number of warnings that creates a problem.
That did not happen in the examples given. And Terr had a bunch of warnings before the ones that got him suspended; Der Trihs had been here longer and he did not.
