Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Policy & Help >

Moderation requests & discussion thereof

Page: 1 ... 72 73 74 75 76(77)78 79 80 81 82... 95

Less searchable M0rd4nt

20:06 / 17.10.07

Have made the topic starter aware that he can edit his own summary, just in case he didn't know.

20:09 / 17.10.07

Christ, this is one of those really awkward situations when elements of the board collide with people I'm friends with IRL.

Here's what I think

The thread was never going to fly in Comics. It's silly and doesn't fit the with the way we run the forum today

Producing that abstract and agreeing it was at best a very poorly judged stab at humour (F4J, I mean, come on!) and at worst antagonistic. Assuming mods were paying attention to what they were doing, I'm worried that there is room for the latter option to breathe

The ensuing debate has been unsurprisingly unpleasant*, although I think everyone would well to calm the fuck down. Just about anything that's written at this point could be interpretted, rightly or wrongly, as antagonistic.

Let's just leave this, shall we? I know for bloody sure that I'm going to.

For the record I would be SUPER FUCKED OFF to have my name associated with that fucking group, joke or no

20:12 / 17.10.07

You guys are too good at this. For a second there, I thought you were serious. "Abuse of power"...hehe.

Hallo, Paper Spaceboy

20:16 / 17.10.07

Either way, I've only seen AB step on to the plate so far on the mod side, but she wasn't the requestor. Invisible CHaus, was it you? You did post here first of everyone when things hotted up what with the new abstract... Coincidence, or not?

For the record, I was the one to make a move to switch the thread over to the Convo over the comics, as is pretty clearly laid out by my only post in the thread in question. As Boboss says, it isn't really the sort of thing that flies in the comics these days.

As for the topic summary -- boot it, rewrite, not really seeing the cause of debate at this point. People are offended, so change it.

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

20:37 / 17.10.07

So when was the summary changed? In Comics, or in Convo? Would that make a difference anyway?

Sorry, coming to this a little late...

Less searchable M0rd4nt

20:40 / 17.10.07

It was changed in Comics. I'm not a Convo mod so I couldn't have voted on it if it'd been in Convo.

Hallo, Paper Spaceboy

20:57 / 17.10.07

I'm not sure it's really worth uncovering or naming the mod in question, as it seems fairly clear at this point that it was a dubious thing to do without more consideration and I'd rather let the thread die down rather than letting it shit-storm again. It was a poorly-considered joke, mods are actually people who can make mistakes, best to just move on from there and let this remind us to mod with cooler heads.

Geez. The stupid thread was irritating when I left the house this morning and then I came back this afternoon and it ballooned like nobody's business. Sorry you were (more or less) alone in there, Auntie.

ONLY NICE THINGS

21:08 / 17.10.07

It's still your fault, Aunt Beast.

XK: I would like to do what I can to respect your concerns, but I would like to work out what specifically you are concerned about. The abstract change is, as far as I can tell, a pretty good example of moderation in action - somebody started a thread without a topic abstract, a topic abstract was added, the thread starter was inspired by that topic abstract to suggest their own topic abstract which they felt better captured the aims and intentions of the thread. I take from your post that it is a behaviour in the thread that is upsetting you. Could you give me some more info on what behaviour it is? This is for me personally to check my own behaviour, so feel free to PM me if you don't want to get into it here.

21:14 / 17.10.07

Good to see that a relatively simple request has been turned into an OMG TEH MODS AM ABUSE ALL TEH TIME argument by the local idiot. We did ban paranoidwriter, yes? He didn't just change his name?

ONLY NICE THINGS

21:24 / 17.10.07

To be fair, a couple of people have cited this as an abuse of moderator powers, or demanded that the moderator in question reveal self. However, between Smiling Friends, the "comics are for kids" thread, the recent "without prejudice" attacks on Mordant and the fact that one of the injured parties has spend their last two suit names telling us how shit Barbelith is, and of course the godawful metaphor over the page, I'm finding it hard to take these grievances as seriously as possibly I ought to.

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

21:37 / 17.10.07

I'm sure if it was PW he'd have already started harrassing Tom and demanding detailed logs of every post to Barbelith in the last four thousand years.

21:41 / 17.10.07

To be fair, a couple of people have cited this as an abuse of moderator powers, or demanded that the moderator in question reveal self.

Trufax, but there's only the one twonk trying to claim that it's a regular event.

21:47 / 17.10.07

Just to be cristal clear, I made a point of specifically stating mod abuse is a rarity. If such point has been lost by some in the middle of the argument, I hereby re-state it. So, Dancepants can't really be talking about me, can ze?

ONLY NICE THINGS

21:55 / 17.10.07

Oh, and:

Invisible CHaus, was it you? You did post here first of everyone when things hotted up what with the new abstract... Coincidence, or not?

Coincidence, I fear. If you check the date stamps, you might note that it had not really got swinging by 19:40 barbetime. Also, and rather more to the point, a casual look at the Comic Books forum will tell you that, although almost everybody on Barbelith is a moderator there, I am not.

THE HUNT CONTINUES!

ONLY NICE THINGS

21:59 / 17.10.07

Actually, Megatron, before your all-bets-off analogy, you said:

(such instances of misuse of power are still rare, but seem to present a tendency for growing).

So, tendency for growing. Examples, please?

22:01 / 17.10.07

I'm still not seeing any post before this last one where you either retracted or reworded the claim that:

This is not the first time that eager mods behave very troll-ish based on subjective standards on what and who is valuable enought to speak up.

In fact, you specifically reworded the following sentence, then continued to talk about moderators plural a few posts later. So yes, yes I am refering to you.

22:19 / 17.10.07

So, tendency for growing. Examples, please?

I'm just concerned that if bad behaviour goes unchecked, it may start to happen more and more frequently until it becomes the norm, and since no one was complaining about that, that is what would happen eventually. So, my "tendency for growing" comment is to be seen more as cautionary warning thana listing of actual instances of abuse of power

BUT, I do remember a certain Iron-man thread in which I was accused of trolling by someone simply because I did not agree with the majority opinion on what constitutes a given movie genre by someone who happens to be a Mod (remember who?). And a accusation of trolling by a Mod, even in the lack of any evidence thereof, with the implicit threat of banning it implies, is meant to make a poster shut up, is it not?

AND, I do remember Aunt Beast requesting rushly for a poster to be banned only to regret and retract such request soon after, after other mod (remember who?) warned her of such mistake.

AND, now this...

Finally I used the plural because I did not want to antagonize a specific poster/mod, simply as that. I wanted said mod to question hirself and realizing ze was letting hir (often righteous) indignation clouds hir judgement as to being a considerate mod. It was an invitation for self-examination, while trying to be as least hostile as possible. However, as usual, people take the very worst possible interpretation of a given statement - in this case, that I was accusing all mods - and run with it, going absurdly defensive and start counter-arguing by yelling "shut up", calling others "local idiots" and so on. Not very helpful or mature. I am, honestly, just trying to contribute with my 2 cents to avoind something that might, some day, be very, very detrimental for the quality of the board.

22:20 / 17.10.07

I'd like to say, as I indicated in the thread in question, that I added the summary as a stupid thoughtless joke entirely without malicious intent. I apologise totally and regret that I caused anything like this amount of distress for anyone.

ONLY NICE THINGS

22:36 / 17.10.07

HUNT OVER

I am, honestly, just trying to contribute with my 2 cents to avoid something that might, some day, be very, very detrimental for the quality of the board.

Appreciate it. However, for the record, I don't think that the way you compose or express your thoughts is generally productive - this being a case in point - your understanding of what is actually going on is often sketchy, and you spend rather more time talking about rape than is strictly speaking healthy. I would address myself to all of those issues before seeking to save Barbelith from itself - the history of people wordbombing the Policy to save us from ourselves is not generally a happy one.

22:43 / 17.10.07

Appreciate it as well, actually. And indeed I should have used a less inflamatory analogy if I really wanted to get my point across, I was a bit exasperated at the time. Apologies.

Glenn Close But No Cigar

22:43 / 17.10.07

Haus to XK: I take from your post that it is a behaviour in the thread that is upsetting you.

Well, this is what XK had to say on the issue: From my POV some posters wanted to have some fun and someone who did not entirely support their objective tied it in with something eyestabby

Haus apparently has me on ignore at the moment, so doubtless he will not read this post, but interested readers may nevertheless like to ponder the above.

We now know that Johnny Not-On-The-Spot authored the F4J abstract, and personally I admire his apology. However, to ok a change to a post's text take two mod votes. Aunt Beast has already admitting ok-ing the F4J abstract, so logically (if, indeed, the number of mods required to ok the insertion of an abstract is the same as required to ok a change to a post) there must have been at least one other individual who thought the F4J roflcopter was fine and dandy.

Johnny has been unequivocal in his apology, and respect to him for that, but surely the mod or mods who ok'd the insertion of his abstract have some editorial responsibility, and hence some apologising to do too?

Mods on Barbelith should, because of the responsibility and power vested in them, be the most self-reflexive members of Barbelith. This goes for Mods who approve actions just as much as those who recommend them or carry them out. I very much hope that they will demonstrate themselves to be so in this case.

ONLY NICE THINGS

23:25 / 17.10.07

So, on the F4J issue: I don't get exactly what the problem is. Is the issue that referring to F4J without specifying that they are not a group of whom Barbelith as a whole approves is not on, or specifically altering a thread abstract to suggest that, although the title is AVENGERS ASSEMBLE! and the people initially posting to it have changed their names to the names of the Avengers, this is in fact a thread for members of Barbelith to declare their membership of Fathers 4 Justice? Presumably, in that case, the same would apply to any political or pressure group, yes? Or is it specifically F4J? Or, are we saying that any mention of issues concerning the breakdown of the family unit or custody battles - or just F4J? Or only lighthearted treatments? - is not acceptable? Or is it the specific association with ShadowSax?

I'm asking this in part because we have prior art on discussing F4J - specifically in the thread discussing F4J, which began with both a light-hearted treatment of the group, and a post which broadly expressed approval for their methods and sympathy with their situation - here.

So, what exactly is upsetting here? Speaking personally, to make my position clear, I found Dead Megatron's rape analogy far more revolting than the reference to Fathers 4 Justice - not a group I would like to belong to myself, but not, say, the BNP. Is this a question of inappropriate tools used to admonish the thread starter for a) not putting a topic abstract in and b) using the Comics forum as a sandpit? What, precisely, is the abuse of power here?

23:26 / 17.10.07

If wishes were horses.

So let's see -- the two mods involved in this devastating, crushing, defaming attack have both acknowledged that what they did was wrong. Mod action undertaken, challenged, changed, and apologized for. So everything's working as it should, and nothing's broken.

Is there anything else or would you like to try to drag this on for another few days by comparing AB to some kind of intractable fucking troll who will do anything at all rather than admit she made an error of judgment? Perhaps we should strip of her of her terrifying power to approve the addition of an abstract where none was provided? Could it be that wielding such awesome power is simply too much for any mortal to bear without being hopelessly corrupted by it?

(Edit: sorry, crossposted.)

23:37 / 17.10.07

I fully expect this to die a death now that it's turned out that Biz proposed the original abstract.

ONLY NICE THINGS

23:38 / 17.10.07

Well, there's one more moderator who voted on the action who has yet to come forward and apologise. They may not feel they need to do so, they may fear becoming the target of persecution, or they may be asleep. If nobody comes forward, I suppose we will have to strip everyone but Bizunth of mod powers in Comic Books and recruit new moderators. Given the incredible power you get, no sane person is likely to turn down the offer.

23:50 / 17.10.07

So, what exactly is upsetting here? Speaking personally, to make my position clear, I found Dead Megatron's rape analogy far more revolting than the reference to Fathers 4 Justice

Also personally speaking, I would have to agree, it was a comment in extremely poor taste, and if there was a greater point in the analogy's use it was overwhelmingly obscured by a combination of innapropriate subject matter and poor phrasing. That said, DM did apologise for his hasty use of those words, so this might be another issue best left to wither away for the sake of everybody's sanity.

Given that the summary change was questioned and eventually changed, and that Aunt Beast and J N-O-T-S have acknowledged both their actions and errors of judgement, pursuing this issue in order to make opportunistic attacks on board members who contribute a great deal both to the content and maintenance of the board seems, to me, to be transparent, self-interested and poorly concieved.

(Edit: crossposted, it can die a death now please?)

02:50 / 18.10.07

(I just agreed a summary change for this topic, the one in which I am now posting. Since nothing was actually changed, I don't know how one would know the summary had achieved a set number of votes.)

(I also agreed on the change from the F4J abstract in that thread to the current, less objectionable one. Although I suspect what was eyestabby wasn't F4J itself, but the running gags on domestic abuse that the recontextualization unleashed. If the two things can really be separated.)

Regrettable Juvenilia

07:36 / 18.10.07

Jesus Christ. I haven't been on the board in 16 hours or so, but if I take a bullet and say "I AM TEH THIRD MAN" will that make Dead Megatron and Glenn Medieros happy? So happy they shut up and fuck off for a bit? I'm not a Comics moderator but since neither of them seem capable of reading the list of names at the top of a forum, that probably won't matter.

ONLY NICE THINGS

08:02 / 18.10.07

grant:

1) That was me - I just wanted to make sure I was right in my belief that changing a topic abstract required a proposal and two consents, which it does, in case we were seeking too many or not enough miscreant moderators.

2) That sounds credible, certainly - so, in that case it would be not the summary addition so much as the light-hearted references to domestic abuse of women, absent parents and child molestation that were upsetting - so, that would be primarily Glenn Medeiros' and Dead Megatron's activities in-thread (regrettably, the ignoring has this morning been abandoned, in the face of a clear issue emerging in Policy).

I'd like to get clarity on that from XK, though, who to my knowledge is the only person who has registered eyestab rather than unhappiness at being linked to F4J through the summary modification or unhappiness at autocratic moderation, and who has not clarified the origin point of that eyestab.

There's a broader question about transparency - specifically, are moderators obliged, actually or morally, to admit to any moderation action they propose or vote on? That's more difficult. Ideally, I'd say that yes, they should be. However, the tendency of some members to feel entitled to harrass individuals, and the lack of controls we have for that, makes this trickier. Was it a reasonable request for Paranoidwriter to demand an accounting of, I think, every moderator action taken in a given week, and who voted how on each one? I thought at the time that it set an awkward precedent, not least in the amount of time an obsessive member could demand from Tom and from the moderators. On the other hand, should moderators be ready to account for their actions? I would say yes, they should, on a case-by-case basis when the situation demands. Does this situation demand it? Well, that's tricky. The summary has been changed, and the extent of the harm done has yet to be clarified - specifically, by XK.

So, the balance there is between transparency and enabling harrassment. At this point, does the transparency gain outweigh the likelihood that members might use the information as a springboard for Barbestalking?

Closed for Business Time

08:15 / 18.10.07

A thanks to Haus, AB and Johnny N.O.T.S. for clarifying, apologising and apologising respectively. To DM and GM, maybe you could do with a bit of patience? Instead of harping on about MOD ABUSE, please next time display some of that charitable judgment you seem to want others to have for yourselves.

09:04 / 18.10.07

Obviously coming in twenty minutes too late (as I so often do) but perhaps we can give people an opportunity to modify or add their own summary before changing it? I don't know if a PM or anything was sent to the thread's starter in this case, but it might help avoid this situation in the future.

Jawsus-son Starship

09:24 / 18.10.07

Ditto Evil Scientist - and I'm breaking my policy ban for a one off special. I'm not sure why Glen got lumped in with Dead Morontron; I can't see why his posts in thread would be viewed as offensive by any non-f4j members. As far as I can see, all he did was call F4J wife beaters;

If you're seeking to recruit a potential Ant-Man to Fathers for Justice, you should be aware that the character's history of domestic violence might hurt your cause. Then again, given some of the real-life members of FFJ, he'd probably fit right in.

Just wanted a clarify is all. I will now go back to not posting in Policy, so please don't ban me.

ONLY NICE THINGS

09:35 / 18.10.07

Obviously coming in twenty minutes too late (as I so often do) but perhaps we can give people an opportunity to modify or add their own summary before changing it? I don't know if a PM or anything was sent to the thread's starter in this case, but it might help avoid this situation in the future.

True, but it would also banjax the rhyming summary project, which has contributed to some of the best of Barbelith. And would have avoided this, probably, "Justice" being very hard to find a rhyme for.

10:04 / 18.10.07

Well there's nothing to stop someone PMing the thread-starter with a suggested rhyming summary before they change it I guess. I sort of thought that was what people would do anyway.

ONLY NICE THINGS

10:36 / 18.10.07

But where, I say where, would the fun be in that? Besides, as has been demonstrated, the thread starter can move to alter the thread summary at any point. Assuming that their summary is any cop, it will replace the current summary.

And, to be honest, people who don't leave summaries to start with probably won't create a good summary anyway. However, perhaps the rhyming summary project is a luxury we can no longer afford when faced with reactions like this.

Page: 1 ... 72 73 74 75 76(77)78 79 80 81 82... 95