Forum members expectations of moderation (from the Goodbye thread)

[Kit deSummersville]

I shall press the limits of my confectionary skills.

[Paul]

Posting links to material that violates the rules results in sanctions being applied. I've had it happen to me already, I'm not going there again.

Yes, but you're linking to stuff on this forum. If it's still up, it doesn't violate the rules, or it went unnoticed. If the latter, and if it results in sanctions, I very much doubt you'll be acted upon.
I guess people want specific examples to support an argument, or otherwise are prone to dismiss the argument. I mean, I suppose they could accept your assertion on your authority alone, but I guess they're not prepared to do so.

[Col.Hengist]

I shall press the limits of my confectionary skills.

 Can you make them gluten free?

[Kit deSummersville]

Can you make them gluten free?

I'd hated to be punished for gluten.

[Col.Hengist]

I'd hated to be punished for gluten.

 I spelled it wrong again...didn't I? Oh well.

[Wolflord]

I've had 4 Warnings, and 4 posts Deleted.   :-\

On the other hand I've had no warnings and 1 post deleted, it is simply not an absolute correlation.

I spelled it wrong again...didn't I? Oh well.

I'm dyslexic, I don't get it, explain please?

[Kit deSummersville]

I spelled it wrong again...didn't I? Oh well.

No, I was trying to riff off of the phrase 'glutton for punishment'.

[Lorcan Nagle]

One more pun like that and I dessert

[Sulla]

No, I was trying to riff off of the phrase 'glutton for punishment'.

Take it to Off Topic or the MW Hall boards, please.

[Stormfury]

Yes, but you're linking to stuff on this forum. If it's still up, it doesn't violate the rules, or it went unnoticed. If the latter, and if it results in sanctions, I very much doubt you'll be acted upon.

Given that I know I reported them and have mentioned some examples here, they cannot have gone unnoticed. But since I was issued a Warning for saying the exact same things or posting in a less confrontational manner, I know that they do violate the rules. As for the last? Given how unevenly the rules have been applied to me in the past, I am seriously unwilling to provide any further reason for Warnings to be handed to me. Especially since it would be inarguable that I knew the material in question was considered offensive, yet I went ahead and linked to it any way.
 

I guess people want specific examples to support an argument, or otherwise are prone to dismiss the argument. I mean, I suppose they could accept your assertion on your authority alone, but I guess they're not prepared to do so.

And yet I am supposed to take it on faith when the situation is reversed? Especially since the removal of posts that result in a Warning means that they cannot be offered up as proof, putting those of us saying that there is a double standard in play into a situation where it cannot be demonstrated no matter what?

I haven't seen anyone use that accusation in this thread, let alone repeatedly.

...

Correct me if this paraphrasing is incorrect: Your opinion is that the moderators are not doing their jobs adequately because you perceive that they allow certain posters to break the rules more than you.

Did you ask the person if they got a warning? And, of course, if they said "no," how can you be certain they
are being honest? Some people might not admit to having received a warning. To my knowledge, the Mods
do not post that they warned someone publicly. All warnings I have ever received were through PM. It is
entirely possible those posts *DID* get a warning, but the poster had not received 3 warnings in the last
year, so did not get a week+ ban.

You know, that's hard. Not because of who you are or who we are, but because, unavoidably, you aren't unbiased and are heavily invested in your view of the situation. Which is to be expected, but as all of our minds can change history to conform to our worldview, it is difficult for third parties to rely on vague assertions. Perhaps some links to these examples might be a better way to prove you point. Otherwise it's back to a he said/mod said argument that is heavily tied with the reputations of the parties involved.

You have repeat that over and over, but that doesn't make it true. We even had another person testifying that he got warned but his post wasn't removed.

Be honest...

In so many words? Maybe not. In effect? Yes.

[Peacemaker]

Hey all,

We do seem to be circling around on the same arguments again, so I'm going to go ahead and draw the discussion to a close. I'm going to lock the thread at around midnight tonight (Wednesday). Hopefully that will allow anyone to get in final thoughts (not zingers! Keep it respectful).

Thanks!

This is another thing that bothers me about the moderation on these forums. If people want to talk in circles, they should be allowed to as long as no rules are being broken. The right of the mods to end any thread they think is going nowhere is very vaguely defined and it's very frustrating to people who still want to continue the discussion.

[Kit deSummersville]

In so many words? Maybe not. In effect? Yes.

Not agreeing with someone or even not believing them is a far cry from an accusation of "arguing in bad faith".

[worktroll]

This is another thing that bothers me about the moderation on these forums. If people want to talk in circles, they should be allowed to as long as no rules are being broken. The right of the mods to end any thread they think is going nowhere is very vaguely defined and it's very frustrating to people who still want to continue the discussion.

Peacemaker,

I'd disagree. People have the right to talk in circles. If they didn't, then the MW Hall would be empty. However, when talking in circles starts leading to rules violations, we have a choice:

- Leave things to escalate until the flames break out and we end up issuing warnings
or
- intervene ahead of that point.

Our strong preference is the latter approach. We gain no pleasure out of issuing warnings and bans. However, we gain less pleasure from outbreaks of inappropriate behaviour. Similarly, there are a few hot topics which will always get intervention - for some years, one of these topics was ice hockey, oddly enough. Discussion of (say) rules for animatronic sex dolls (mentioned in fluff) would probably be another. There just isn't any benefit to the forums in going in some directions.

As noted above, remember the moderation team are volunteers. Two consequences of this:

1) They work as a group, with oversight. Sorry, it simply isn't possible for one moderator to act on any irrational hatreds or predjudices, because the other mods and admins will see this. We record all official interactions, so there's no question about who is supposed to have said what to whom in an official capacity. Above us is the CGL observer, and ultimately the BattleTech line developer & CGL management.

2) They (and we) can't and don't spend 24 hours scanning the forums. That's one reason we REALLY encourage people to use "Report to Moderator" if they see what they think is a problem. All moderators & admins see when a Report is made.

I understand some people don't like how they perceive the forums working, but I don't believe I'll ever be able to influence their perceptions. I'd also like to thank those of you who've contributed productively to this thread, and those who've sent me questions and messages on the topic.

Cheers,

Worktroll, Administrator

[Kit deSummersville]

No offense intended, Kit..but I do remember several times when Herb banned writers from posting AT ALL,
partially because people were asking you all questions outside the appropriate forums, but also because
of some "misbehaving." And then, you were mysteriously quiet for a week, and when you came back, your (then)
Yellow Star was not added back for a while. To me, the implied meaning was that you had gotten a ban. Maybe
that is not the case, and you were just WAY busy with Shadowrun and BattleTech writing and your day job..
But to me, the IMPLIED coincidence of all three things at around the same time says that: Yes, even Writers
get dinged and Banned.

You're pretty close there. I previously did not have a Yellow BattleMech at the point where I posted this post. Apparently I was being held to a higher standard than other posters and someone skipped the moderation and complained directly to Randall, which filtered down to Herb who was going to ban all the writers from posting for a while. I pointed out that if he needed to hand out a punishment, it should just be me. So I got a week long ban/suspension/timeout and when I came back I got the Yellow BattleMaster to approach the standard to which I was being held.

I've gotten a few other warnings, so apparently this 'favoritism' isn't helping me out any.

[Col.Hengist]

Take it to Off Topic or the MW Hall boards, please.

 So was that just to me and Kit or to Wombat also who's been making jokes for pages? Because it seems like another preferential treatment example since this was the first warning not pages ago when the joking started.

[Paul]

It's a line being drawn, and it applies to everyone who would like to cross it. Whether their forum nick is Wombat or Paul or Col. Hengist.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

[Col.Hengist]

Roger. Thank you for the clarification sir.

[HikageMaru]

You're pretty close there. I previously did not have a Yellow BattleMech at the point where I posted this post. Apparently I was being held to a higher standard than other posters and someone skipped the moderation and complained directly to Randall, which filtered down to Herb who was going to ban all the writers from posting for a while. I pointed out that if he needed to hand out a punishment, it should just be me. So I got a week long ban/suspension/timeout and when I came back I got the Yellow BattleMaster to approach the standard to which I was being held.

I've gotten a few other warnings, so apparently this 'favoritism' isn't helping me out any.

Ah.  I remember when that happened.  I wondered what brought it about.

[Grognard]

Well, I've placed my suggestion to partly fix the PERCEPTION of bias and favoritism.

If you choose to not implement... so be it.

Eventually tho, with time, Perception becomes "COMMON KNOWLEDGE".

It may be Absolutely Wrong, but since Everyone just KNOWS that it is common knowledge... it is considered an axiomatic truth.

By that point: it's impossible to fix.

As hard as it sounds (and is..) Moderators, et al, should be held to a MUCH HIGHER standard.

That's why I don't wanna be a Mod.  I'd get banned for farting in public.

[Paul]

Well, I've placed my suggestion to partly fix the PERCEPTION of bias and favoritism.

If you choose to not implement... so be it.

Your suggestion is a far worse cure than the perceived disease.

Eventually tho, with time, Perception becomes "COMMON KNOWLEDGE".

It may be Absolutely Wrong, but since Everyone just KNOWS that it is common knowledge... it is considered an axiomatic truth.

We've somehow managed to avoid that problem for more than a decade.
Just because a few people believe there's a problem, doesn't mean they're correct.

Paul

[Peacemaker]

Peacemaker,

I'd disagree. People have the right to talk in circles. If they didn't, then the MW Hall would be empty. However, when talking in circles starts leading to rules violations, we have a choice:

- Leave things to escalate until the flames break out and we end up issuing warnings
or
- intervene ahead of that point.

Our strong preference is the latter approach. We gain no pleasure out of issuing warnings and bans. However, we gain less pleasure from outbreaks of inappropriate behaviour. Similarly, there are a few hot topics which will always get intervention - for some years, one of these topics was ice hockey, oddly enough. Discussion of (say) rules for animatronic sex dolls (mentioned in fluff) would probably be another. There just isn't any benefit to the forums in going in some directions.

I understand your reasoning, but I don't have very much faith in the ability of anyone, internet moderator or otherwise, to predict the future. I agree with you that certain topics that inherently involve politics, sex, religion and sports have no place here. But I've seen innocuous discussions that involve none of those things get shut down because the mods decided they weren't going anywhere.

[worktroll]

It may be that there were some more heated threads, that ended up removed; alternatively, if the last half-dozen posts all came from two posters saying "You're wrong, I'm right" and "No, you're wrong, I'm right" and we get a number of requests from members saying "close it down, it's going no-where", that might be the case.

[Sulla]

Hello again all,

This has been an interesting conversation with many good points made across the board. As I said this morning, the thread would be locked around midnight and that time has come.

Thanks!