BARBELITH underground
 

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


Moderation requests & discussion thereof

 
  

Page: 1 ... 1920212223(24)2526272829... 95

 
 
Smoothly
15:26 / 08.01.06
I assume that's the pun. Albeit an incredibly shallow one.
Is also the original username, isn't it? So unless he's now picking 'em...
 
 
Ganesh
15:28 / 08.01.06
Or reviving long-dormant ones from the time when one's ability to register sock puppets was limited only by one's time and energy.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
15:29 / 08.01.06
I'm pretty sure I've seen that username fairly recently.
 
 
Ganesh
15:33 / 08.01.06
We'll see, then, won't we?
 
 
Smoothly
15:48 / 08.01.06
Ze seemed to have graced us with a brief sticky spurt of posts, mainly in comics, in July '04. Dunno if anyone can pick up the scent from back then?
 
 
Tryphena Absent
17:31 / 08.01.06
I am disagreeing the deletions unless someone comes out and explains what is going on with Knodge and how it is known that this isn't some random guy.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
17:44 / 08.01.06
Nina: see here. Until further notice, anyone who returns after a long absence, had a Hotmail address on display and focuses on censorship, cliques, killing and dismembering people, skincare and getting attention by posting racially or sexually offensive material and then reacting with bewilderment when challenged is probably a troll. Whether it's that particular person or not is not really a concern - action is to lock the suit and lock/delete threads and posts where it does not harm sense.

OK?
 
 
Tryphena Absent
17:53 / 08.01.06
Yes that's fine but next time place this post up before proposing a series of deletion requests. If we're really running a system of distributed moderation then it's wise to actually inform the moderators in clear language rather then a series of hints.

Here's the rub: I as a moderator on barbelith will not delete anything that has been decided between a small number of people as unreasonable without being informed of why. I feel that would be irresponsible with regard to the system that we run, especially where I personally have seen utter idiocy rather than a specific attack. However I recognise that evidence online is spurious when you consider that people are untraceable.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
18:00 / 08.01.06
"Will not delete" or "will actively seek to prevent the deletion of"? Quite an important issue, this, as we have already had trouble with moderation actions on troll posts and threads in the Conversation, and so to have actions vetoed, rather than skipped, because of a moderator not personally believing that the standard of evidence is there - that is, removing from the other moderators the right to look at the moderation request - could be an issues. I will aim to collate information to provide a single reference point in future, and then link to it, and will suggest that others adopt the same policy when asking for moderation actions on the grounds of trolling.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
18:36 / 08.01.06
I only disagree things when the basis for the request seems illogical or spurious. I think that the reasoning behind the request this time is fine, having been given that information I wouldn't disagree a request because I was unsure about it, I would skip it. The collection of incidents is enough to ban someone but not because we think that person may or may not be someone else.

This is fine as long as you apply it to everyone.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
18:38 / 08.01.06
I repeat I as a moderator on barbelith will not delete anything that has been decided between a small number of people as unreasonable without being informed of why.

That why is very important, earlier I disagreed a request because I felt it was not adequate. I will not delete on hearsay.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
18:42 / 08.01.06
Yes, I have no problem with the action that was taken but I think transparency could have been a little better- I'm guessing this is because the other mods (like me, to be honest) were assuming everyone else had the same, erm, knowledge as themselves, when clearly that wasn't the case, rather than through any active attempt at obfuscation.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
18:57 / 08.01.06
Fair enough.

However, one thing:

The collection of incidents is enough to ban someone but not because we think that person may or may not be someone else.

Not quite, sorry. If it is decided, ultimately by Tom, that suit x has been hijacked by somebody who has been banned from Barbelith for trolling, then that suit is shut down and, where it does not harm meaning, that banned person's posts and threads are removed according to the wishes of the moderators. That's not about actions, it's about consistency in treatment of individuals who have been turfed off Barbelith and have not subsequently been allowed back on- they don't have the same rights to the integrity of their posts that posters who have not been banned do. As it happens, suit hijacking is itself an act which gets that suit taken away from you, so that's self-completing. As such, I thought it was responsible to warn people that that thread might well be deleted, and that it would therefore be wiser to start another thread.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
19:13 / 08.01.06
I didn't know that Tom was in the process of banning TW or indeed that it was decided that suit had been specifically hijacked because no one had mentioned it except to suggest it. I think that rather relates to your last post.
 
 
Smoothly
19:18 / 08.01.06
"Will not delete" or "will actively seek to prevent the deletion of"?

The problem with skipping qua an abstention is that it isn't registered or reported in any way. Skipping a job is no different from ignoring it, or not being online, and discomfort or ambivalence about a particular action doesn't get recognised. For Nina, for example, keen to have more information as to why a deletion was being proposed, disagreement would have been the only way to apply the breaks. We've got a lot of moderators these days, so even if half a dozen thought an action was dubious, it could still be passed by two others who might not be alert other people's reservations.

Is there a way for 'skips' to be logged on the action page in the way that agreements are logged as 'Votes: 2 of 3'? I think if I logged on and saw a job which a significant number of people had actively skipped, I might think that bit harder about possible controversy, or whether I was qualified to cast a vote. It might prompt me to come here and see if there is some dispute.

And yeah, I didn't read Tom's post as confirming anything about Tits Win.
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
19:40 / 08.01.06
But what do we think about twomenwalkingabreast? Has Tom been made aware of that suit too?
 
 
Ganesh
19:44 / 08.01.06
All that suit's done so far is spam (ostensibly unwittingly) and say very little about George Morrison. Benefit of doubt, etc.
 
 
Spaniel
20:15 / 08.01.06
Ah, I see we're on top of the situation.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
20:26 / 08.01.06
If that wasn't him then this probably is. I've put it up for deletion.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
20:29 / 08.01.06
On the other hand it could be simple nonsense but I suggest we get rid of it.
 
 
Ganesh
20:30 / 08.01.06
Benefit of the doubt, Nina? One post. Let's hang on for a little more evidence.
 
 
Smoothly
20:40 / 08.01.06
For the record, I disagreed it for the reason Ganesh gives. Let's not get too trigger happy. If we need to slash and burn I'd like to see a bit more due process.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
20:49 / 08.01.06
Oh whoops! I have a confession to make. I only clocked the time on the post after I'd put the request through and I was on my way back to ask someone to stop it. I thought it was a response post.

*bangs head against wall*

Never put a request through when you're in the middle of installing something. Everyone ends up thinking you're dim because you have been dim.

Unreserved apologies.
 
 
Ganesh
21:05 / 08.01.06
Can we delete Alex?
 
 
Tryphena Absent
21:10 / 08.01.06
*smirks*
 
 
Ganesh
21:11 / 08.01.06
As a concept, I mean.
 
 
Smoothly
21:15 / 08.01.06
T'awww.

*puts away overalls, polythene sheeting...*
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
21:25 / 08.01.06
But what do we think about twomenwalkingabreast? Has Tom been made aware of that suit too?

Yeah - it's been mentioned. However, since the multipost happened before "Tits Win" was shut down, it's more likely to be a cock-up rather than a Knodge meltdown. Certainly, it's best not to treat people like a banned poster until you're really quite confident that they are a banned poster - which feeds neatly back into the importance of providing info in mod requests.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
21:27 / 08.01.06
Speaking of which: especially with the new moderators, it seems that a higher standard of evidence is required to demonstrate this sort of thing - in this case I should have put links and information in the mod request which would have clued people up to what was being discussed in the Policy in various places, in PMs, and so on. That's reasonable. As long as we are not opting out of the statement above - that hijacking suits is a banning offence, and that people, not fictionsuits, are banned from Barbelith, and therefore somebody identified as a banned user will have whatever fictionsuits they are using taken away from them. If you don't believe in either of those (not saying anyone here doesn't, of course) and are prepared to act on that belief, you should probably not be moderating.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
21:33 / 08.01.06
I can certainly agree to that.

Maybe we should have a "codes of conduct for mods" thread, so we can avoid going through this EVERY. FUCKING. TIME.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
21:46 / 08.01.06
It's not that bad... but then mine wasn't the usual objection. I just wanted to know why it had been accepted that x was y. You do rather have to tell someone why you think x=y if you want them to delete something. Otherwise they'd be a pretty shit moderator. Is it really that difficult to spend five minutes writing a reason in the mod request which you save on your desktop and copy and paste into the field? If you don't want to do that then you're simply going to have to find a way to be less exclusive.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
21:49 / 08.01.06
Keep it civil, Nina.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
21:52 / 08.01.06
Sorry, I didn't mean for that to be uncivil! I just mean that either you tell moderators at the time or you tell them earlier but you can't not tell them because then they might as well be passing things without reading them at all!
 
 
Tryphena Absent
21:55 / 08.01.06
Sorry, I'm tired and the words I'm using are turning into my speaking voice rather than my writing voice (more exclamatory) and naturally no one can read my tone so it sounds more aggressive than I mean it too.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
22:06 / 08.01.06
To be honest, I probably should have explained my own self better, rather than just using capitals.

It's just, there was... stuff... on telly in the other room and I was running in and out.
 
  

Page: 1 ... 1920212223(24)2526272829... 95

 
  
Add Your Reply