I'll say what I said in the other thread: Is it so hard to believe that a moderator can act impartially despite personal feelings for a poster? If so, I have to ask you to look at how many times Mrs. A. has warned UA. Furthermore, I'd imagine that the ability to repwar would provide a vent or outlet for said personal feelings, so as a moderator isn't tempted to abuse their real power - warnings.
No, I'm saying a mod can't afford to have any perception of impartiality, and if anything Mrs A should be tougher on her husband than any other party when it comes to board functions. I'm also saying that a mod can't afford to warn someone that there are involved in a rep war with without the shit hitting the fan - because it SCREAMS bias even when it's justified. If anything, that makes modding the board more difficult, not less. And finally, is it so hard to believe that a moderator can enjoy the board and being a moderator WITHOUT having to get involved in rep wars with the staff? Somehow I think it's possible - and I know it's better for the board. The first thing that changed on the board after some really bad decisions by the staff was allowing mods to get involved in rep wars. I and many others see this as a really bad idea, and even worse timing.
Demiurge: I think you, like MarkB, are making assumptions of guilt on the part of the staff where none may necessarily exist.
Perception, IMHO, is less relevant than reality. So if I... no, bad example... So if Paladin, say, hates, say, Tasvir with the passion of a thousand fiery suns, he's MORE likely to warn Tasvir just because they're able to negrep him? Yes. Rep is part of the board. Either moderators are posters or they are not, at least as far as aspects in which they are fundamentally equal, which includes rep. To continue with my above example, let's say Paladin really lays it in to Tasvir in the Red Room, flaming him as no one has flamed since Shakespeare, and then warns him in Media Central (for something obviously justified). If you wouldn't call this a perception of a lack of impartiality, I don't know why you would call a repwar followed by a warning. Either moderators can flame and troll within the rules, and repwar, or they can do neither, at which point we might as well just remove their posting capability in the Red Room. To go half-measures is ludicrous. It's been on the table for literally years. Go back through the old released Shelter threads if you don't believe me.
Not if it's just the staff left posting, it isn't. Then it becomes reality. No... if he's smart he's likely to not warn him at all, and require someone else to do his job for him. If he isn't smart, it causes TEH DRAMA which as we've seen can escalate out of control, especially when there's the PERCEPTION of bias. No, it's judicious, for reasons which obviously escape you. Flaming in the Red Room is part of the bread and butter. But trolling? Especially the kind we've seen lately? The board isn't better for allowing the mods to intentionally fuck with people they don't like. That's what trolling is. You'd think the staff would have learned that when Tamar claimed she had information on Trinity's real life workplace. Whether she did or not was beside the point. Trinity went apeshit, as well he should. Again, it doesn't matter. It shouldn't have been the first thing done after the current silliness. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that people who are upset with the actions of the mods aren't going to take well to the only change apparent after that is to allow the mods to fuck with them more.
You're going to leave... because people are being treated fairly. Okay... that's a pretty silly thing to do, IMO. Sillier still is demanding that Mrs. A. be harsher on UA (read: unfair) in order to meet some arbitrary demand of an appearance of fairness. "Be unfair to be fair." I don't get it. Well that's just ridiculous. What would be the point of making Paladin a mod then, if he can't do his job because you've set some level of UNFAIRNESS he has to reach, in order to seem fair? So then, what's the point of having staff that can post at all? If the only way to ensure the staff are impartial is for them not to do their jobs fairly, there's no way anyone can do their job, unless they can't post. Repwarring is not trolling. That obviously escapes you. You have two different issues confused in your head, I think. Yep, definitely have two issues confused in your head.
Jesus Christ. This was the first big change after all the problems here. As if it wasn't clear already that the staff was out of tune, we get this? What's so hard to understand. I don't care if it's been on the table for years. It's irrelevent. And doesn't merit a rule or a thread. But the big rule change announcement is about giving mods the power to wage rep war? Is that what we were complaining about for the last four weeks? I must have been confused.
Ugh. Fair and unfair isn't a mathematical model or a physics experiment. It's a matter of perception. Could be you do everything as a mod exactly right, according to the rules - but if the rules are broken, it can still be unfair. Or it could be a judgement call, and person X thinks its fair, but Y and Z don't. The perception of bias and fairness in adminstrating a board is very much at issue. And I've rarely if ever seen staff members, of any board I've been at, think they weren't being 'fair.' But then, there perception and everyone else's isn't always the same. Get it now? Double ugh. I'm not seeing Mrs A giving UA warnings he didn't deserve. However, she isn't giving him friendlies or cutting him slack. So if you still don't get it, perhaps you should ask Mrs A, because obviously she does. Giving warnings isn't an unfairness. Putting a guy in a position where he might be in a rep war and have to enforce board policy without appearing like a dick is. Smart mods aren't going to get into rep wars even if they have the ability. But if one does it is going to make his job more difficult whenever he interacts with that individual in the future, especially if he has to warn them. This is really simple personal interaction stuff when it comes to those with authority. Absolutely ridiculous. You are now equating trolling and repwars with posting? As a regular poster I don't do either, somehow I'm still able to interact with my fellow posters, even flame once in a while when I think someone is being particularly obtuse, and enjoy the board. If you can't enjoy the board with trolling or getting into vindictive rep wars, you shouldn't be a mod. You do either of those things O2C? Can't say I've ever seen it if you have. Does that mean you don't enjoy the board as a poster? Read your own damn posts. You stated 'either moderators can flame and troll within the rules' when discussing rep wars. I was responding to that. Obviosuly I consider trolling a lot worse than rep wars, but as you seem to think that trolling is just dandy, I decided to address that. Either way, mods doing either is bad for the board, and just shows a huge lack of maturity on their part.
No, but impartiality is. People able to read what other people write are going to end up with their own personal biases. This is a given. The job of the staff is to not express that bias in any official capacity. Rep is not an official capacity for moderators any more than posting. Yes. You want people treated partially in order to make it look like they're being treated fairly. But you said Mrs. A. must give UA warnings that other staff might not give him (though with UA, I don't think he'd do anything half-measures, including earning a warning). How is that any different from partial treatment? Repwars are merely an expression of personal prejudice. Warnings are enforcement of board policy. They are disjoint. The reason repwars were disallowed for staff in the first place was because moderators had unlimited rep. As that is no longer the case...... In-rules trolling with posting and flaming and repwars? Absolutely. Look at Excelsius for an example of the former. I disagree. It's only abuse of power that should disqualify. I can't repwar because I have unlimited rep. Not that I haven't been asked nor been sorely tempted to join some of my own accord. If I could have 30 reps/day instead of an unlimited number, I'd be pushing for admins to be able to repwar as well. And yeah, I troll, on occasion. Not the shitstirring or bannable kind, but I do engage in it. If you don't see that, you don't know what trolling is. You DEFINITELY don't know what in-rules trolling is. To add, because I couldn't find a good place to put this elsewhere: If Paladin reads a particularly offensive series of Tasvir's posts in the Red Room, gets pissed off, and then finds some similarly offensive or otherwise warning-worthy material in Media Central, what difference does it make if he starts negging Tasvir's posts in The Red Room before warning him in MC? He's going to be biased whether he negreps or not. All he has to do is give warnings impartially for violations of board policy.
The words are synonyms. Sure. But then, rep and repwars haven't ever been held to the same standard, have they? There is an understanding that past a certain point, rep wars are not just another expression of rep. And that has been policy. Hell, there's even delineations between what forums repwars are allowed, IIRC. So no, you don't get it. No surprise there. I didn't say must, I said should. Nothing in the rules forces here to do it. However, she understands that any appearance of favoritism to her husband would open her up to accusations of bias, so she enforces the rules strictly instead of giving leeway. By your standards, partiality then would be any discretion whatsoever. That's farther than I would take it, but certainly its good judgement to avoid any percieved bias at any time. EXACTLY. How you can follow that with... The people doing them AREN'T. The reason repwars were disallowed for staff in the first place was because moderators had unlimited rep. As that is no longer the case...... [/quote] ... we might as well let the people who enforce the rules express their personal prejudices. Well, I was more thinking of Tamar trolling Trinity and Meka. As that was never punished, it has to be assumed it is also in rules, correct? So if a mod shows extraordinarily bad judgement but never abuses his power that mod will be on the staff indefinitely? That explains a few things. Sure I do. It's more than posting a thread that you think will rile up the conservatives or the liberals. That's the bread and butter of discussion forums. Obviously our definitions are different. But then I got mine modding guys like Red Whacker, Daystrom and Skinofevil. Hell, the Flashlight was an itty-bitty troll back then. You've got to be kidding me. Considering there isn't a definition that's been posted to the general public I'd say very few people do. You guys might have defined it amongst yourselves, but if you did you didn't bother to codify it for anyone else. According to the FAQ, it's whatever the staff decides it is. It's your very first rule. 1. No flaming and/or trolling outside The Red Room and The Gray Room However, even the Red Room and the Gray Room are moderated with a lighter touch. But in the end, determining whether or not something violates this rule is strictly up to the common sense of the staff. Also, in case there is a contradiction in the rules or if we just don't have a rule to cover a certain type of behavior, this particular rule will be held as the golden standard. Considering there are no rules for what defines acceptable trolling (other than the no real life info), I'd reassert that it's even more important that there is no perception of bias present, as without any defined rules everything is a judgement call by the staff. Again, you obviously just don't get it. What matters is that if Paladin has been involved in with a matter of personal prejudice with another poster that has been going on for days, weeks or months, if he has to warn that poster, especially as everything is based on his discretion, then it opens him and the staff up for all kinds of criticism, warranted or not. No Paladin is smarter than to do that. I imagine most of the mods are - the two particularly vindictive ones 'resigned' recently. Reality and perception are intertwined in a medium such as this. Not recognizing that causes problems that don't have to exist.
Trolling in the Red Room...anyone can do it. You have any examples of me treating anyone I had a tangle with in the Red Room in a biased or abusive manner when it comes to moderating or administrating the board?
And you think mods are exempt from those delineations... why? Distinction without a difference. However, she understands that any appearance of favoritism to her husband would open her up to accusations of bias, so she enforces the rules strictly instead of giving leeway.[/quote]If she's giving any less leeway than any other staff member would give, it's unfair. Not if that requires one to be harsher than anyone else would be. It's not a one-way street here. Because posts are a similar expression of personal prejudice. Would you have moderators not post? But we do already! When they post, they are expressing their personal prejudices. Not my place to speak on that. Ask Elwood. You have your ideas about what makes a good staff member, we have ours. Good for you. There is not one person among the staff (or the membership, for that matter) who is not personally biased towards or against someone. That doesn't stop them from doing their jobs now, which is impartial enforcement of the rules, which necessitates an ability to step back from those biases. Yeah, sometimes they screw up. It's called being human - you'd do it too, on occasion (and you'd be being dishonest towards yourself, me, or both if you said otherwise). One more way to express that bias in an unofficial, unabusable capacity is not going to hurt anything.
That's not the question, Tamar. You threatened Trinity that you had information on where he worked from. He went apeshit, as Trinity was one of the few people who could have had real life effects occur over what he posted here. He had to assume that you were using your staff privilieges to get that information, because he certainly didn't provide for any clues. You later clamed you were simply lying. No one knows whether you were lying then, or lying now. Either way you hurt the board for your own personal amusement, just as Storm recently did. Why? Because that troll directly caused a shitstorm, and directly led to many posters questioning whether their personal information would be at risk if they posted here. Trinity reduced his posting, and later left. He used to be one of the most dynamic posters here, regardless of whether you liked him personally. Now are you telling me your role as staff member had no affect on how that played out? Or an admin waging a personal vendetta against a poster like you did with Meka?
You mean what does a mod trying to drive off other posters from the board have to do with the perception of fairness in the moderating staff? Have we ever had posters leave because of rep wars? Is it a good idea to encourage the mods to drive off posters from the board?
So you trust people with the ability to give a warning, but not to spend their reputation points where they wish?
If two dozen people flame each of the offender's posts in the red room, how is that any different than repwarring? Should mods be unable to flame in the red room?
As far as I know you guys always have been able to rep - you just haven't been able to engage in childish rep battles where you neg rep someone. Not exactly the same thing as not letting mods spend rep. A 'prejudiced' post is just that, an opinion. They carry no sanction whatsoever. A neg rep is a slap. A rep war is an expression of prejudice against that poster. If rep is totally meaningless, then why put it on the board in the first place? And again, if it doesn't mean anything, which seems to be the argument, then why should mods feel like they are being denied anything if they can't use it to punish people they don't like? No, mods shouldn't be allowed to do that, especially with the intent to drive off posters they don't like. Nor should they be allowed to troll them in that fashion. Because their job is to help the board, and that diminishes it.
The point was maximum freedom for everyone. Just gonna have to agree to disagree with you. I just don't agree with the concept of the Stepford Moderator or the idea they are somehow better.
