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

Underground > Policy & Help >

Banning of users

Page: 1 2 3(4)5

16:20 / 24.10.07

The only thing I found slightly oblique was Haus's

I think that would achieve almost exactly the opposite of what KB was saying, as it would load the Policy with moderators of wildly varying ability and competence. KB was rather, I think, suggesting that it would be nice if all the moderators had the same baseline level of ability to identify bannable behaviour, and a shared understanding of what it was, which at present is not the case.

- in that I am reading it as as statement that not all moderators are of the same 'ability and competence', and that not all moderators have the same 'baseline ability to identify bannable behaviour'.

Although I believe I understand the purpose behind what is being said in this paragraph, on first reading it feels, to me and possibly only to me, to be divisive, in that it seems - again, to me - to mark out that some mods are better than others - although not, granted, in any other terms than the two categories stated above.

I stand ready and willing to be corrected, though.

ONLY NICE THINGS

16:39 / 24.10.07

in that I am reading it as as statement that not all moderators are of the same 'ability and competence', and that not all moderators have the same 'baseline ability to identify bannable behaviour'.

Yes, that's absolutely right. I was saying precisely that. In what sense do you feel that was oblique?

17:07 / 24.10.07

The only way I find it oblique is that I am reading it as a value judgement - and that I'm not sure what it's based on other than personal experience and opinion, whereas to me it presents itself as a factual statement. Is this an incorrect assessment?

ONLY NICE THINGS

17:34 / 24.10.07

"Oblique", when not referring to grammar or angles, means "indirect or evasive", to the best of my knowledge. I don't understand how my speech has been either of those, or how that factors into your understanding. My intention was not to speak indirectly or to evade, and I hope it did not seem so.

However, it is a matter of reasonably verifiable fact that not all moderators have the same baseline level of ability to identify bannable behaviour, and a shared understanding of what it [is], yes. Four people who are currently identified as moderators, for example, have argued that Holocaust denial should not be bannable behaviour. I would say that ability and competence are also factually variable: a number of those identified as moderators no longer post to Barbelith, and some have left Barbelith in considerable dudgeon, while not to my knowledge providing any verifiable proof that they have locked themselves out of their suits. I would identify either of these groups as either less able, less competent or both.

The number of moderators currently active on Barbelith whom I think have rather blotted their moderator copybook in one way or another is comparatively miniscule, and that is indeed a matter of personal interpretation of events, absolutely. Speaking personally, I think your dichotomy of personal experience and fact is a questionable one, but I understand broadly what you mean - it might be best to assume, for these purposes, that anything I might say on such matters is a personal opinion based on subjective experience of events - the events should therefore be identifiable, the interpretation might need explaining.

18:08 / 24.10.07

I think I have picked up 'oblique' from mice's post and kangourou's reiteration, and I see now that my usage was wrong. I also hope that what I've said by picking up this usage is not seen as speaking for mice or kangourou, because that was not my intention. You're absolutely right - you've not been 'indirect' or 'evasive'.

Thank you for your explanation - I appreciate it, and now see what your meaning was, and I was reading the passage I quoted in the wrong manner.

jentacular dreams

18:30 / 24.10.07

Sorry if the term annoyed, it wasn't meant to. I meant that for a number of weeks (if not months) people have been mentioning that 'I wouldn't trust some mods to X' or otherwise commented on the unequal distribution of barbelith moderation ability. Sometimes a link has been firmly drawn to holocaust denial, but at other times they have been far less so. And whilst I would agree that the mod population may be quite heterogeneous in their ability and availability to moderate, I'd quite like to see something like a contract that assumes anyone who is given the option and agrees to it is competent to moderate until proven otherwise. At which point they could/be asked to step down from modding.

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

18:45 / 24.10.07

I think now might be a good time to have that conversation about who should and shouldn't be mods, given the increase in power. What does everyone else reckon? We've been dancing around this for weeks, and maybe we should now put our heads on the block and see if they get cut off.

19:14 / 24.10.07

Seconded.

19:43 / 24.10.07

Yes, I think you're right there, Stoatie.

07:11 / 25.10.07

Oblique comments about G&G aren't going to clear it up IMHO. me
I'm not sure what's "oblique" about my posts or anybody else's KG

Oblique because no names were mentioned. I got the impression that Haus had a few specific people in mind when he dropped in the example of G&G, and similarly from your post it seemed you were trying not to offend someone-
Insofar as moderators have any more say than non-mods in who gets banned, variable mod ... and I'm trying to come up with a value-neutral term ... congruence is going to be an issue.
I think oblique is a relevant adjective. Don't get me wrong, I agree with you both that there is a range of competence represented in the mod lists, I just think it might be better to address the issue directly.

Haus, forgive me if I misrepresent you by saying you think some mods aren't fit for purpose. If that's the case, why generalise? Why don't you point the finger and say 'this is what we expect of moderators, this is how you fall short moderator X'.
Am I being insensitive? I'm not suggesting an Apprentice-style sacking or a trial, but if you honestly think some mods need de-modding, why not be explicit? Who, precisely, are these mods that can't be trusted with the power of (I want to say greyskull) veto?

07:12 / 25.10.07

Or, what Stoat said. Who's getting the axe then?

07:22 / 25.10.07

Does anyone think we will also need to select some people to replace those who go? Or should that wait until we see what numbers we're left with once the inactive suits and so-forth have been cleared?

Shiny: Well Over Thirty

08:13 / 25.10.07

It seems to me it should be a three stage process. Stage one, get agreement and an explicit definition of what is expected of mods. Stage two, get rid of those mods who aren't willing or able to work within that framework for what a mod should be, as well as those who have burned their suits - this is the nasty stage. And stage three recruit more mods as needed based on the definition arrived at in stage one. We seem to be nearly there on stage one, but it probably wants it's own thread.

Tryphena Absent

08:14 / 25.10.07

People will need to be replaced but there's no point replacing them before they're not moderators.

08:26 / 25.10.07

Let's not hold our breath though, it's been about a year since we asked for some inactive mods to be delisted and nothing's happened AFAIK.

ONLY NICE THINGS

09:22 / 25.10.07

Well, quite. Which is a very good reason not to name names, to be honest. It would probably engender at least a degree of bad feeling, and to what end? If nobody's going to stop being a moderator as the result of a merciless analysis of the moderators, what exactly is achieved?

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

11:01 / 25.10.07

Well, if it's not going to happen then there's little point in discussing it, sure... which leaves us with the original problem.

12:22 / 25.10.07

Quick, while Tom's about, ask him about de-modding! He posted this in the Darkmatter thread saying "I think I've changed it to five, with two vetos needed to stop it going through."

So, the current state of play as I understand it is that the perceived lack of mod skill is less of an issue as it takes two to veto. We need to add some active mods in some fora to make up to five. We (probably) have a banning function in the hands of the board users.
w00t! Thanks Tom!

13:38 / 25.10.07

It would be nice if there was some way to democratically vote on moderators, but I think I am living in fantasy world ATM.

La, la, la...

14:40 / 25.10.07

"Oblique because no names were mentioned."

I didn't name any names from G&G because I don't visit there. What I said about Games was The third quality a mod would need would be forum-specific, a particular interest in Games, for examples, and a willingness to spend time in there keeping conversations going as well as cleaning up html and so forth. Leaving aside the typo for a moment, you can see that I'm using an interest in Games as an example, and could just as easily have said "an interest in art" for AF&D. The person whose views (on a specific moderation question) I think are incongruent, and that's my way of trying not so say horrifying and fucked up, since I think cursing will set off tempers and not move the conversation forward, is cusm. Do I need to provide a link, or can I assume that people still remember the relatively recent discussion about the counterculture turning conservative (don't recall the exact phrase he used to dismiss a view widely held on the board)?

I confess my temper is growing a little short here. How many times do we need to go over this? Is it really still news to anybody who reads the Policy?

15:15 / 25.10.07

I didn't name any names from G&G because I don't visit there.

That part was aimed at Haus, as was the 'oblique' comment. He's pointed out it would be of little profit to name the names he was thinking of, since no mod changes are likely to be forthcoming any time soon, and I'd agree. I hadn't thought it through.

Why the short temper? I critiqued what I perceived as Haus' obliquity (is that a word? Maybe obliqueness) and noticed you'd done something similar, not naming a name. Sorry to tar you with the same brush, but it's not like you're getting criticised for it. My apologies if I came across that way.

ONLY NICE THINGS

16:04 / 25.10.07

However, we can say that the other three moderators - Life Critic, Jack Frost and Charrelz - who argued for permitting the Fetch to post to a greater or lesser extent unimpeded in the "Censorship Among Occult Practitioners" thread are all moderators in Games and Gameplay, although Jack Frost has at least declared his intention to burn his suit and I believe LC may not argue the same case these days, as are Rising and Revolving (left, I think after arguments over moderation), Tom Tit's Tot (left in anger due to our hatred of children)...

These are just a couple of factuals on issues of congruence - some G&G mods, who may or may not still have access to their suits, do not agree that we are not child-hating bastards, e.g.

20:03 / 25.10.07

Sorry, Quantum -- not short-tempered with you, just generally with what feels like the same conversation being had repeatedly in thread after thread. I apologize, if there's any place I should make a special effort to contain myself it's here.

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

21:10 / 25.10.07

Is it really still news to anybody who reads the Policy?

No, it isn't, but loads of people don't.

Hey, I still think it'd be a great idea to make "reading the Policy" a prerequisite for complaining about the board, but it's impossible for so many reasons.

Personally, Policy is not just the most important, but the most interesting forum on Barbelith. And yes, it's a handy rule of thumb that people who come here are likely to actually care more about Barbelith, as in "what they can put in", rather than just "whether they can say X without being cussed to the dust".

It's a really sad state of affairs when people can START threads like the Halo 3 one (which was salvaged, and all due respect to the salvagers, but ferfucksakes, if there was ever an object lesson in how NOT to start a thread, it was there) without it actually having occurred to them that that's not the way to do it. Especially when (in the case of that one) they've been here for a couple of years.

I don't know... I'm torn between "I found this place the first night I ever had the internet, and I was really drunk, and I kind of stayed here" (which is absolutely true, and I hate that that is not possible now) and "how do we make people actually give a shit"? And it's really tricky. (Seriously, in real life, if I stumble into your house I think it's nice if I don't shit on your carpet or punch your friends. I'm a pretty good party-crasher, really).

ARGH. I'm not cross at you, or anyone else in particular, so don't take it that way. I just think we're (myself obviously included) not very good at dealing with problems.

FFS, we still don't actually know whether Darkmatter's been banned or not. And we're arguing about shit like we actually have a clue.

00:49 / 26.10.07

feels like the same conversation being had repeatedly in thread after thread.
I think that's very frustrating for those that continually contribute to (or read) these threads, be they rehashing concepts of policy or going over for the umpteenth time why it's not considered okay to say ______ here. I'm very impressed with some people's ability to continually repeat themselves in a generally civil way after years of repeating themselves in a generally civil way. By god, I think I'm basically repeating myself in saying that. I also understand Stoat's frustration in the board not being able to deal with problems very easily, but it is just the reality of nearly any board, and this one has its own idiosyncrasies that are particularly annoying. You cannot get this many people to have a unanimity on anything but the most obvious or blatant issues, you cannot get everyone to read everything they should, and you cannot make people like everyone else. Obviously there is general consensus on many matters here, which makes it the unique place that it is (not the fact that there is consensus, but the things that most here agree on).
There seems to be enough agreement on board behavior, in general, that if someone wrote out a version of terms of use (conditions, whatever it would be called), started a thread and posted it for comments, many people would then comment and add and subtract until enough felt it was enough, and then figure out how to make it at least often read by members, especially new ones. Similar for the moderator issue.
It's very possible that the five mod/two votes ban is what it will be (if Tom makes that change, and is it actually two votes?); it can't be expected that more will be granted, even with pleading and/or cajoling. It can be hoped for. If that's the case, then I suppose the next debate would be how open the board should be, along with the issues of solidifying expectations of members and moderators.
I don't know if I'm being totally obvious, and I'm sorry if I am, but isn't that about how it should go? And that's how it is going, isn't it, for the most part? It's just a slow process. How much better could we realistically hope for?

12:53 / 26.10.07

some G&G mods, who may or may not still have access to their suits, do not agree that we are not child-hating bastards, e.g.

Does this really matter, particularly? Perhaps from a symbolic point of view it's not great to have people at odds with Barbelith in whatever respect on the moderator lists, but it strikes me as extremely unlikely that people who appear to have ceased entirely to post to the board will be lurking in wait to launch malevolent moderation attacks. And even on the off-chance that one such person were to be doing just that, it's not exactly a position of great power: it would require at least two ex-member-still-moderators to scupper a banning attempt, and five to effect a ban.

ONLY NICE THINGS

13:30 / 26.10.07

Well, the request was for information about why Games and Gameplay was repeatedly mentioned as a place where the list of moderators gave cause for concern, and that was the question was seeking to answer. I am not overly concerned about disgruntled offstormers launching a banning attack - however, a disgruntled offstormer can personally or having given their login to a troll prevent any moderation activity in a forum apart from banning from taking place, pretty much invisibly.

16:26 / 26.10.07

That's true (at least as far as I'm aware of the moderation system). It may be just about the most pathetic form of trolling conceivable, though - sitting there waiting to deny requests to correct people's misspellings in the latest Halo thread.

Less searchable M0rd4nt

16:31 / 26.10.07

We did actually have a Temple mod for a while who was vetoing mod requests unless the mod posted the request in thread first, and got the okay of the poster. That includes things like requests to re-size an image. In short, do not underestimate the human capacity for mind-melting pettiness.

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

16:56 / 26.10.07

That's entirely true, but we should also probably not overestimate the possibility of having a system that's 100% foolproof, that possibility being non-existent.

There is no possible solution which I can imagine which would be entirely abuse-proof. If that's our criterion for choosing one, then we may as well give up now, because we're speaking of unicorns. What we should probably do is look at the relative risks of each method, rather than, as we have been doing, saying "that's balls because someone could do X". And maybe end up with a method which, while not foolproof, is less shit than the others.

ONLY NICE THINGS

22:45 / 27.10.07

Well, we have a method, based on banning thread, followed by move to ban, followed, if ban does not for some reason work, by request to Tom. To simplify that, I would suggest compiling a list of people who should not have moderator powers - people who aren't here anymore, mainly. Send list to Tom. Ask him to demod them. Look at mods remaining. Assign more mods to fora whose lightness on moderators has now been revealed.

Of course, it's possible that this won't happen, but whaddayagonnado?

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

23:17 / 27.10.07

Thing is, as far as I know, we still have no idea whether Darkmatter got banned or not. (Unless I missed something, which is entirely within the realms of possibilty).

We should probably get confirmation on that before anything, really. Otherwise it's naught but a drunken game of marbles on a moving bus. Which is made of water. And isn't even going to where we live.

08:19 / 29.10.07

How?

jentacular dreams

09:54 / 29.10.07

We could try a second ban and see whether we hit an error message. Or failing that, check with Tom.

ONLY NICE THINGS

10:35 / 29.10.07

It's pretty much impossible, unless Tom confirms it. We can ascertain that the ban got enough votes, but whether it actually _worked_? Not so much.

I was going to suggest that we ask Dusto if he would mind having us scuttle his old suit, Bloody Chiklit, and see what happened, but then realised that doing so might block his Dusto suit from logging in. I think we have to take it on faith that a completed banning action excludes that user until proven otherwise.

Page: 1 2 3(4)5