Forums-->Off-game forum-->
<<|<|20|21|22|23|24|25|26|27|28|29|30|>|>>
| Author | Discussion polygon: LWM Staff - Moderators |
|---|
I would agree Barbarian-Fishy. If he has been heavily banned in the past, than a stronger punishment may certainly be warranted. It would all depend on those bans and what each was for. On the surfaced this seems excessive and some justification may be needed to clarify the situation.
However, it has been argued here in this thread quite a few times, and I have heard Queen Amanda say repeatedly, that punishment should always be consistent, that wrong is wrong. That mindset would seem to limit options when it comes to applying punishments on a gradient basis based on previous behavior. Unless of course the gradients are only deemed to apply when sliding the scale up toward more severe, not down based on previous good behavior or other mitigating circumstances... perhaps that is the case here, mods are allowed to make penalties more severe based on previous occurences, but cannot exercise judgment when mitigating factors are in play. Can someone (either past or present mod) clarify?
Queen Amanda and I have had this debate before (though she ran away rather than debating me). I am a fan of justice being applied on a case by case basis with all surrounding facts both pro and con weighed in the final decision. I do not like zero tolerance systems where everyone is treated the same all the time regardless of the situation. Admittedly, a zero tolerance policy is easier to enforce, as it requires less nuanced judgment by mods, but it isn't necessarily more "fair" in my mind. We can go into great detail on why I feel this way if anyone wishes, but I'll leave it at that for now. | So, any comment as to whether Pang moving the threads I mentioned previously (links can be found in Post # 449) was appropriate behaviour for a Mod?
Or can I once again expect my questions to remain unanswered?
Grunge | Answer to 482.
Personally I think Pang did right to move those threads.
I'm not a mod so this is just my personal opinion. Some others here also seems to think it was right. Grunge obviously think it was wrong. This leads me to the conclusion that it is in a gray zone and can hardly be called abuse of mod powers. Noone was silenced or baned.
I think it was stupid and wrong of Queen_Amanda to ban someone for 2 months for offending her. It would have been much better to let some other mod do the punishing. | Grunge
I'm still not so sure about calling someone corrupt in this thread... based on a fairly quick skimming of this thread, I have seen current/former mods called, directly or very close to it, the following:
Liar - Post #10 - "...his deliberate lie..."
Cronyism/Corruption - Post #61 "Kotrin and his cronies were distributing positions of power among HIS circle."
Selfish - Also post #61 - "It only proves their selfish nature"
Tyrannical - Also post #61 - "once the dust of his Tyranny on the forum settles"
Bullies - Post #70 - "What bullies cannot cope with though is their targets standing up to them"
Petty and Childish - Multiple posts by me, at least 3 occurrences of each
There are plenty of others out there, so I think we have a precedent established here where at least derogatory statements against mods are permissible in this thread. None of the above have received any warnings or bans to date and most are well over a month old now. Finally, I'll offer one final sentiment, which is not mine, but which I find apropos and amusing:
"Insults are only insults when they are not true." | Grunge,
Since you took the time to answer my questions, I am obligated to return the courtesy.
I, personally, feel like threads get moved here a lot for some very odd reasons. I have noticed that it is frequently Pang moving them. I'm not certain that this is abusive, but it is odd on many occasions. Without more detail I can't know if it was abusive, but I would agree that it may warrant investigation by the admins. | "Insults are only insults when they are not true."
I've never heard that saying before. I think I like it.
Grunge | For a fact, at least the thread that concerns superbober and myself, was nothing short of inappropriate moderation. Pang has been a moderator for quite a while...not some "new" guy testing out the water. The thread should of been closed by someone--and Pang moved it lol.
After I was forced to cite the rule violations in the thread, Erebes did close it--and erased some posts that Grunge added. Well in my opinion one was against the rules, but the 2nd was warranted as it provided more evidence. But the entire thread was a big fat joke that was allowed to run for too long, so what anyone posted there was of little importance. We're supposed to trust the mods to do their jobs...this is getting harder and harder to do. Especially for people like myself who don't have enough time to read all the posts daily, or be logged in for 14 hours a day, etc.
As for Queen Amanda...don't know anything about that ban. I can only speak for myself, and the situations I am personally aware of--so whoever implies double standards needs to get a reality check. All of my posts have been strictly about stuff I know first hand--I don't speculate with such matters, which is why I post so little in comparison to most others. | @Slynky. In a general morality discussion, I think you do need to weigh up the pros and cons. In regards to forums and looking at the pros and cos, all you can be on a forum is a decent poster, or a rule breaker.. What pros can you build up. "It's been 6 weeks since my last ban?".
There should not be a reward for not breaking the rules. So all that can happen is the punishments keep ramping up if people keep misbehaving. | Barbarian-Fishy,
In such a cut and dry case, I would agree. But let us muddy the waters a little...
Suppose that a player (player-A) has been on here for 2 years, without ever a warning, ban, or any other punishment. They are normally a model player and forum poster with hundreds and hundreds of helpful, constructive forum postings. They end up in an argument with a fairly new player (player-B) whose only been on for a week or two. The argument turns nasty and they lose their cool. Player-B hurls an obscenity at Player-A who hurls one back.
They have now both broken the same rule. Should both be given an equal punishment? I can see both sides, but I'm of the opinion that Player-A should be given a bit of leniency based on prior track record while player-B should get the standard penalty for using an obscenity.
The above is not a real-world example, it's an arbitrary construct just to illustrate my point. In reality, most decisions will be much more nuanced. I just feel that the moderators should have the ability to exercise that nuanced judgment. | @Slynky. How's that water muddy? The chance of that happening is so unlikely (if he was the kind of person to lose his cool, he would have done so within that 2 year window) but I'll humor you.
The rules are clear. Swearing has a penalty. Any modification of that opens the flood gates. "@#$% is worse than $%^& so blahs penalty should be less."
a: But he started it
b: Did not
a: Did too.
etc.
Also justice not only needs to be done, it needs to be seen to be done. In your example, that new guy has no idea about the model poster's history. He just sees a guy getting off because he's high level, in the inner circle, whatever.
It's a forum. it's not like people just blurt out something. TheY have to type and hit post send. If they can't learn restraint, then a forum holiday is fine.
Nuanced, is just an excuse for people trying to get exemptions. It's not a court of law, it's a forum. Different rules exist. | for Slynky: #489
I disagree with this reasoning, punishment should be based on severity of the rule break and prior rule breaks, or repeat offenders. Taking into consideration good behavior is in effect saying you can break rules and get reduced punishment if you are good in other areas. This is not proper.
for Kotrin:
Apparently some actions don't quite stir up the same reactions if the mod under scrutiny is part of a certain clan.
It seems you are absolutely right Kotrin, because you refuse to acknowledge or reply to any questioning of your or other mods actions. Unless of course they are in a clan you dont approve of. Then you seem to have no problem discussing these actions even comparing them to the actions you refused to discuss previously, now thats priceless.
It seems being a Mod is much more powerful than I ever thought. It appears that being a Mod alone can make a person stand behind the company line and defend the poor actions of others, or at least deny and refuse to acknowledge them. Because once they are no longer a Mod they seem to take advantage of every situation they can, doing things they once punished others for, questioning and pointing fingers at current Mods when they never would have tolerated that when they were a Mod.
Very few people in this thread have relevant and unbiased statements, I think I have finally become sick of being one of them! | I think perhaps the premise of this thread, and many of the people writing in it that they can in any significant way influence or change the judgements of others is fundamentally flawed. In addition the premise that any meaningful conclusion shared by any will be drawn and then acted on, is also flawed. I can see only debate, which by many may be seen as distructive rather than constructive. As I see it, it is mostly a sparring match between Slynky and Grunge, as an intellectula challenge in the same way as trying to win the argument " I am worse at arguing than you". The content is not actually majorly an issue to those arguing, but they enjoy the intellectual stimulation of the duel.
Overall, the same conclusion that I believe occured a while ago can still be reached. Nothing, if anything will happen, it is unlikley to change. Just chill, accept things as they are, put up with it and move on. Perhaps that is just me being British though. | Fair enough... here's a real-world, from this forum, example:
Player-A engages in a conversation with Player-B and Player-C in another thread and during this conversation they call a moderator an offensive obscenity. Player-A takes a screenshot of this conversation and posts it in his photo album for his friends to laugh at in case the mods delete it.
Player-D catches this and calls public and admin attention to the conversation and photo album posting. Player-A deletes the image from his photo album and pretends to not know what everyone is talking about. Player-D has a copy of the image and posts it for moderator reference with a note telling mods he will remove it as soon as the situation is resolved or a mod asks him to.
Should Player-D, who tried to call official attention to the conversation receive the same punishment as Player-A, who participated in the conversation and documented it for humor?
(Anyone familiar with this thread will recognize the situation, I merely made the players anonymous to prevent any further re-hashing of it by people new to the situation). | @Slynky. This is a bit more grey. Good work finding this one. But I actually think cases with shades of grey like this are rare.
Only reason a copy was kept was for the purpose of showing admins. Someone posting a chat log with obscenities would not be guilty of an offence, and him posting the image in the process of a complaint would not be an offence. But there was more.
If I was a mod I would personally advise him to store the image elsewhere or otherwise I would apply a ban until it was moved. At the end of the day, it is still an obscenity on the players record that doesn't need to be there. It could be stored elsewhere. | This thread is about abuses by moderators! personally I would welcome it if everyone who tries to take it off topic by non-related discussions or unsubstatiated accusation do so in private mail.
for # 493 & his question about how it is RIGHT for moderators to act.
It is quite clear in my mind.
Anyone who breaks the rules should be punished for it.
If it is a first offence then I would expect a less harsh punishment for them than for someone who frequently offends but all deserve a punishment.
It would be much better for everyone involved if NONE of these people broke the rules. I would not accept an arguement of "I broke the rules because he did" as valid.
_____________________________
I would like to ask Pang why he deleted a number of GaC topic threads which broke NO rules?
There were at least 4 or 5 such threads deleted for no appararent reason around the 15th April (unfortunately I cannot provide links as obviously the threads are gone). | I complete agree Barbarian-Fishy (your name is way too long btw ;-) )
There was an offense on both sides, which was readily admitted by both sides. However, it was suggested by our newest and current staff mod that the punishment should be identical for both. This is the lack of nuanced judgment to which I have been alluding all along. It's a troubling case of seeing things in absolute black/white terms without acknowledgment that there are times when there are shades of grey, even if they are admittedly quite rare.
Fortunately, no punishment was ever meted out in the above case, but the opinion was clearly and publicly stated, so it concerns me that should something similar happen in the future, shades of grey may also be ignored. | DiN,
I am speaking about precedent of thought and pattern of behavior established previously by Queen Amanda. These issues relate directly to the case brought against her by Kotrin and I submit my findings as supporting evidence to his claims. These go directly to her 2 months ban, the insult ban against ZenoMX, and the chat ban of Sven.
I apologize if my manner was to obtuse or roundabout, but I was trying to illustrate a rather complex and nuanced point. | There is a great difference between a personal opinion and a moderator's decision.
When someone becomes a moderator then they have a duty to enforce the rules as defined by the admins.
You cannot really hold what someone said prior to becoming a MOD as a valid arguement to demonstrate abuses just as you cannot use someone actions after resigning/being evicted from being a mod.
As I understand it, this thread was created for people to: Give examples and proof of where they felt moderators abused their position; To ask the moderators to explain their actions (if they are willing to answer); to give moderators a chance to post their concerns.
It was not created as a forum to flame/bash/insult the mods or any other players OR to give unrelated people the opportunity to setup a kanagroo court and discuss/prosecute & apply sentence. This area remains clearly the domain of the admins. | Well, there has been plenty of flaming, bashing, and insulting of the mods already, as noted in #484. All those came long before this thread was revived, they were just from the first 7 pages of this thread. Besides, "Insults are only insults when they are not true."
I just love that saying ;-)
I agree that there is a difference between personal opinion and moderator decisions/actions. However, in this case, Queen Amanda was a mod at the time of the incident in question. She was a chat mod, so she lacked power in this forum, but she was a mod. This was her opinion of justice when she already held official position and the authority to issue bans.
So who is unrelated here and who is prosecuting and applying sentence? Haven't really seen much of that, but I might have missed it. This thread has been humming today so I haven't had a chance to read all the posts in great detail. | Well, there has been plenty of flaming, bashing, and insulting of the mods already, as noted in #484. All those came long before this thread was revived, they were just from the first 7 pages of this thread.
Yes and they were almost all off-topic and should have been removed. Just because someone else does something wrong does not mean we should all copy them.
However, in this case, Queen Amanda was a mod at the time of the incident in question. She was a chat mod, so she lacked power in this forum, but she was a mod. This was her opinion of justice when she already held official position and the authority to issue bans.
So what exactly are you saying she did to abuse her moderator powers with regard to your rules breach? |
<<|<|20|21|22|23|24|25|26|27|28|29|30|>|>>Back to topics list
|
