It's a two way street

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

I guess referring to me as publically as a subhuman piece of shit publically is not any of the same things you claim I do?

Good guess. Remember, you brought up this subject so don't blame me for replying to it, but since you did, I reserve that particular comment for the subhuman pieces of shit who publicly support acts of TORTURE committed by the Bush administration.

You are one. I've said the same thing about others who have posted similar comments. Actually, that's probably praising anyone who has posted that particular horror too highly, and I make no apologies for saying it. There's a reason why the world has labeled TORTURE as a CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY. :shocked:

I won't go deeper into it, here. Anyone who really cares to know about who you are and what you believe can search for your posts in P&N.

(Shakes Head).. I guess there is a reason Anand felt the need to put Derek in charge here. Its just too bad he isn't available. But I do thank you for pretty much summing up this entire thread and what people are complaining about in like 2 posts.

You're quite welcome. We aim to please. And thanks for embarrassing yourself further. :beer:

 

[daw123]

My thoughts on the matter.

Invariably, different mods are going to have different opinions on what does and does not breach the rules.

The only way you can overcome inconsistencies in the moderation here is by having:

(1) One mod make all the decisions (not practical with a forum this size).

(2) Numerous mods, which abide by prescriptive rules, which are detailed and unambiguous. You are always going to have 'grey' areas, which can be exploited. Hence, you update / amend / clarify the rules as you go to close the loopholes when they become apparent.

(3) All decisions are by committee; i.e. a decision cannot be made by a single mod, but by two or ideally three or more mods, whereby a decision can be reached by majority vote. This would be too time-consuming and impractical.

(4) Numerous mods and a single senior mod that oversees and can over-rule any contentious decisions. I suppose this should be Derek, but since he rarely makes an appearance here... well this obviously doesn't work, so who's policing the police???

It seems as if we are supposed to have (4), but we actually have (2).

In addition, a three strike policy or something similar could be implemented, like most people have at work for misconduct, gross misconduct, etc. If a mod breaches the rules that he / she is supposed to be upholding, then he / she has several strikes, before he / she is demoted as a mod. Basically, the mods should abide by the same rules as everyone else.

Since, I don't own this forum I have to and I will abide by this forum's rules, so I'll shut up now.

 

[MotionMan]

Originally posted by: daw123
My thoughts on the matter.

Invariably, different mods are going to have different opinions on what does and does not breach the rules.

The only way you can overcome inconsistencies in the moderation here is by having:

(1) One mod make all the decisions (not practical with a forum this size).

(2) Numerous mods, which abide by prescriptive rules, which are detailed and unambiguous. You are always going to have 'grey' areas, which can be exploited. Hence, you update / amend / clarify the rules as you go to close the loopholes when they become apparent.

(3) All decisions are by committee; i.e. a decision cannot be made by a single mod, but by two or ideally three or more mods, whereby a decision can be reached by majority vote. This would be too time-consuming and impractical.

(4) Numerous mods and a single senior mod that oversees and can over-rule any contentious decisions. I suppose this should be Derek, but since he rarely makes an appearance here... well this obviously doesn't work, so who's policing the police???

It seems as if we are supposed to have (4), but we actually have (2).

In addition, a three strike policy or something similar could be implemented, like most people have at work for misconduct, gross misconduct, etc. If a mod breaches the rules that he / she is supposed to be upholding, then he / she has several strikes, before he / she is demoted as a mod. Basically, the mods should abide by the same rules as everyone else.

Since, I don't own this forum I have to and I will abide by this forum's rules, so I'll shut up now.

The individual members of the moderation team can enforce the rules to the best of their ability. If there is a complaint of, for example, inconsistency, personal vendetta or misunderstanding, then the issue can be brought to the team as a whole or the senior moderators or executive moderation committee or whatever for review and blessing (or reversal), all of which can be discussed in the moderators forum.

If an issue comes up enough, the written rules can be adjusted accordingly to try to lessen confusion.

Not that hard to implement and execute if all of the moderators (or, at least, the senior moderators) agree to it. It would raise an interesting question if any moderator would not want something like this used on AT.

MotionMan

 

[olds]

Originally posted by: MotionMan
...

The individual members of the moderation team can enforce the rules to the best of their ability. If there is a complaint of, for example, inconsistency, personal vendetta or misunderstanding, then the issue can be brought to the team as a whole or the senior moderators or executive moderation committee or whatever for review and blessing (or reversal), all of which can be discussed in the moderators forum.

If an issue comes up enough, the written rules can be adjusted accordingly to try to lessen confusion.

Not that hard to implement and execute if all of the moderators (or, at least, the senior moderators) agree to it. It would raise an interesting question if any moderator would not want something like this used on AT.

MotionMan

HUH?
Are you just reiterating what is done now?

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

I guess referring to me as publically as a subhuman piece of shit publically is not any of the same things you claim I do?

Good guess. Remember, you brought up this subject so don't blame me for replying to it, but since you did, I reserve that particular comment for the subhuman pieces of shit who publicly support acts of TORTURE committed by the Bush administration.

You are one. I've said the same thing about others who have posted similar comments. Actually, that's probably praising anyone who has posted that particular horror too highly, and I make no apologies for saying it. There's a reason why the world has labeled TORTURE as a CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY. :shocked:

I won't go deeper into it, here. Anyone who really cares to know about who you are and what you believe can search for your posts in P&N.

You can't even post in a PFI thread without bringing politics and personal attacks into it, yet we're supposed to believe you don't moderate in a biased fashion? LOL.


edit: but let's for the moment assume you're completely unbiased (giggle). What other member would be allowed to post such tripe in a PFI thread? I do want to graciously thank you for illustrating what I perceive this whole thread is about. It's clearly a one way street to you.

 

[MotionMan]

Originally posted by: oldsmoboat

Originally posted by: MotionMan
...

The individual members of the moderation team can enforce the rules to the best of their ability. If there is a complaint of, for example, inconsistency, personal vendetta or misunderstanding, then the issue can be brought to the team as a whole or the senior moderators or executive moderation committee or whatever for review and blessing (or reversal), all of which can be discussed in the moderators forum.

If an issue comes up enough, the written rules can be adjusted accordingly to try to lessen confusion.

Not that hard to implement and execute if all of the moderators (or, at least, the senior moderators) agree to it. It would raise an interesting question if any moderator would not want something like this used on AT.

MotionMan

HUH?
Are you just reiterating what is done now?

That does not seem to be the case based on statements I have read here.

MotionMan

 

[Greenman]

At least we all now know why P&N sucks, and that it isn't going to change.
Pity.

 

[olds]

I just sent an email to Derek. He's never not replied to me.
Here it is:

There seem to be a group of people that like to cause trouble in PFI.
One of their complaints is that you don't care and are as useful as tits on a bull.
I am kind of tired of reading about it and I have a proposal.

I'd like to come back and nuke them all. That's right, get the troublemakers and malcontents the hell out of there so the place can settle down. Oh, it will be busy at first. Those banned will start new accounts and cry like the little bitches they are. Their "friends" and internet tough guy posers will rally to their side. I say we just nuke them too.

It's fairly obvious that the new way sucks and there is no effort to sustain it. I'd be more than happy to be the fall guy and nuke the etards. Everyone already thinks I am an asshole so it's no biggie to me. Plus, it'll be fun.

Let me know.

Chris

 

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: oldsmoboat
I just sent an email to Derek. He's never not replied to me.
Here it is:

There seem to be a group of people that like to cause trouble in PFI.
One of their complaints is that you don't care and are as useful as tits on a bull.
I am kind of tired of reading about it and I have a proposal.

I'd like to come back and nuke them all. That's right, get the troublemakers and malcontents the hell out of there so the place can settle down. Oh, it will be busy at first. Those banned will start new accounts and cry like the little bitches they are. Their "friends" and internet tough guy posers will rally to their side. I say we just nuke them too.

It's fairly obvious that the new way sucks and there is no effort to sustain it. I'd be more than happy to be the fall guy and nuke the etards. Everyone already thinks I am an asshole so it's no biggie to me. Plus, it'll be fun.

Let me know.

Chris

You quit as a mod. Why not let the actual mods handle it? Why quit and continue to try to act as one?

But once again you are ignoring the issue at hand. The issue is moderators acting inappropriately and not being consistent. Harvey has proven that in this thread that it happens.

Unless that you are going to make the argument that PFI is the appropriate place to be discussing the crimes of the Bush Administration and calling members to sit on their thumb and twirl?

 

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: oldsmoboat
I just sent an email to Derek. He's never not replied to me.
Here it is:

There seem to be a group of people that like to cause trouble in PFI.
One of their complaints is that you don't care and are as useful as tits on a bull.
I am kind of tired of reading about it and I have a proposal.

I'd like to come back and nuke them all. That's right, get the troublemakers and malcontents the hell out of there so the place can settle down. Oh, it will be busy at first. Those banned will start new accounts and cry like the little bitches they are. Their "friends" and internet tough guy posers will rally to their side. I say we just nuke them too.

It's fairly obvious that the new way sucks and there is no effort to sustain it. I'd be more than happy to be the fall guy and nuke the etards. Everyone already thinks I am an asshole so it's no biggie to me. Plus, it'll be fun.

Let me know.

Chris

I'm also wondering if you also informed Derek of Red Dawn's, Common Courtesy's, and Geekbabe's mentioning of his lack of action? Or do you overlook THOSE questioning of Derek because their mods or former mods?

Its quite clear some of the staff and former staff members also have issues with Derek. Of course we know you will be consistent and 'nuke' them as well. :roll:

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

I guess referring to me as publically as a subhuman piece of shit publically is not any of the same things you claim I do?

Good guess. Remember, you brought up this subject so don't blame me for replying to it, but since you did, I reserve that particular comment for the subhuman pieces of shit who publicly support acts of TORTURE committed by the Bush administration.

You are one. I've said the same thing about others who have posted similar comments. Actually, that's probably praising anyone who has posted that particular horror too highly, and I make no apologies for saying it. There's a reason why the world has labeled TORTURE as a CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY. :shocked:

I won't go deeper into it, here. Anyone who really cares to know about who you are and what you believe can search for your posts in P&N.

You can't even post in a PFI thread without bringing politics and personal attacks into it, yet we're supposed to believe you don't moderate in a biased fashion? LOL.

This comment convinces me that folks simply cannot separate the Mod from the member in him. I think I'm one of them as well.
I guess a Cop is a Cop 7/24 and it can be no other way.
I also think that Cops hate it when Cops break the law. Not because they bring other Cops down a notch but, rather, because they are a brotherhood. It betrays a sort of code. A code that suggests that the Cop, all Cops accept the responsibility to serve and protect and are given the authority to do just that.
Mods are here to protect the forums and to serve all the members. To enforce all the laws equally. Equal justice under law! That is probably the hardest notion to provide. When you attempt to deliver that concept you very well better leave all your baggage at the door! In this case, you must look to what was posted and not to who posted it.
In P&N I think anonymous Mods, or... The folks Modding that forum should refrain from posting in it. Neither of those notions seem plausable to me atm. Soooo...
Mods must never break the rules they are empowered to enforce. That ought to go with the role of being a Mod. They have to be seen to be perfect forum citizens for all to emulate. And that is the rub, ain't it...

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

I guess referring to me as publically as a subhuman piece of shit publically is not any of the same things you claim I do?

Good guess. Remember, you brought up this subject so don't blame me for replying to it, but since you did, I reserve that particular comment for the subhuman pieces of shit who publicly support acts of TORTURE committed by the Bush administration.

You are one. I've said the same thing about others who have posted similar comments. Actually, that's probably praising anyone who has posted that particular horror too highly, and I make no apologies for saying it. There's a reason why the world has labeled TORTURE as a CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY. :shocked:

I won't go deeper into it, here. Anyone who really cares to know about who you are and what you believe can search for your posts in P&N.

You can't even post in a PFI thread without bringing politics and personal attacks into it, yet we're supposed to believe you don't moderate in a biased fashion? LOL.

You can't even post in PFI without reading a post before opening your mouth to change feet. Fear No Evil raised the issue that I called him a "subhuman piece of shit," not me. But since he did, and I don't deny doing so, explaining the circumstances of doing so is in order. Consider:

1. What I called him when posting under my own acccount has nothing to do or post as "Senior AnandTech Moderator," from the OP.
   
2. As noted, I have called several members a "subhuman piece of shit" for precisely one reason, they have posted to support the Bush administration's use of TORTURE.

As noted, there's a reason why the world has labeled TORTURE as a CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY. If you aren't one of those who has posted to support the Bush Administrations' crimes against humanity, this doesn't apply to you.

If you happen to be one of those who has posted to support the Bush Administrations' crimes against humanity, I hope I got around to calling you a "subhuman piece of shit," as well. If not, I hope you get the picture, and you're properly offended, now.

In any case, I don't apologize to anyone for having posted calling anyone who has supported their crimes against humanity a "subhuman piece of shit." If you have a problem with that, it's your problem.

If you have a problem with the fact that it's even part of this discussion, remember, I didn't bring it up. You can piss and moan to Fear No Evil for raising the issue in the first place.

 

[alchemize]

Fair enough, you're posting entirely as a member. You're dragging your P&N tripe into PFI. I can't wait to see your warning/vacation from another mod. And of course FNE can get his warning/vacation, and so can I for a mod callout.

/cricket cricket

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: oldsmoboat
I just sent an email to Derek. He's never not replied to me.
Here it is:

There seem to be a group of people that like to cause trouble in PFI.
One of their complaints is that you don't care and are as useful as tits on a bull.
I am kind of tired of reading about it and I have a proposal.

I'd like to come back and nuke them all. That's right, get the troublemakers and malcontents the hell out of there so the place can settle down. Oh, it will be busy at first. Those banned will start new accounts and cry like the little bitches they are. Their "friends" and internet tough guy posers will rally to their side. I say we just nuke them too.

It's fairly obvious that the new way sucks and there is no effort to sustain it. I'd be more than happy to be the fall guy and nuke the etards. Everyone already thinks I am an asshole so it's no biggie to me. Plus, it'll be fun.

Let me know.

Chris

You quit as a mod. Why not let the actual mods handle it? Why quit and continue to try to act as one?

But once again you are ignoring the issue at hand. The issue is moderators acting inappropriately and not being consistent. Harvey has proven that in this thread that it happens.

Unless that you are going to make the argument that PFI is the appropriate place to be discussing the crimes of the Bush Administration and calling members to sit on their thumb and twirl?

The irony as I see this quest to perfection is that some folks who Moderate one forum with exceptional expertise cannot bring that expertise to another forum with the same level of ummmmm 'fairness'... [in quotes]. I actually see your point but don't like how it was developed. But, I accept the advocate prerogative as being a reality.
To some folks the use of descriptive adjectives is an imperative. To others a more creative means is much more illuminative. I often read a post which might contain '... F'ing Moron ...' and try to figure out what words I might have used to express my opinion of the quoted poster's 'mentality'. I presume 'F'ing' was not intended as a verb...

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: alchemize
Fair enough, you're posting entirely as a member. You're dragging your P&N tripe into PFI. I can't wait to see your warning/vacation from another mod.

/cricket cricket

I hope you have a lot of crickets. Read the thread. I did NOT drag politics into this thread. Fear No Evil raised the issue by noting that I had called him a "subhuman piece of shit," which has nothing to do with the OP's subject. However, he DID bring it up, and without context, it would be a very rude thing to call him.

That's why I replied to give that context in which I called him a "subhuman piece of shit."

Do you have a more appropriate, hopefully MORE insulting, term that applies to those who would commit or advocate committing CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY like TORTURE? If so, LMK, and maybe I'll start using that as an alternative.

TIA :beer: :thumbsup:

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: alchemize
Fair enough, you're posting entirely as a member. You're dragging your P&N tripe into PFI. I can't wait to see your warning/vacation from another mod.

/cricket cricket

I hope you have a lot of crickets. Read the thread. I did NOT drag politics into this thread. Fear No Evil raised the issue by noting that I had called him a "subhuman piece of shit," which has nothing to do with the OP's subject. However, he DID bring it up, and without context, it would be a very rude thing to call him.

That's why I replied to give that context in which I called him a "subhuman piece of shit."

Do you have a more appropriate, hopefully MORE insulting, term that applies to those who would commit or advocate committing CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY like TORTURE? If so, LMK, and maybe I'll start using that as an alternative.

TIA :beer: :thumbsup:

I know, I know, you have a way to justify everything you do, in your own mind. You are completely innocent and a model member and moderator. Carry on.

Oh, a more appropriate, MORE insulting thing to call FNE? How about "Harvey"?

 

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

I guess referring to me as publically as a subhuman piece of shit publically is not any of the same things you claim I do?

Good guess. Remember, you brought up this subject so don't blame me for replying to it, but since you did, I reserve that particular comment for the subhuman pieces of shit who publicly support acts of TORTURE committed by the Bush administration.

You are one. I've said the same thing about others who have posted similar comments. Actually, that's probably praising anyone who has posted that particular horror too highly, and I make no apologies for saying it. There's a reason why the world has labeled TORTURE as a CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY. :shocked:

I won't go deeper into it, here. Anyone who really cares to know about who you are and what you believe can search for your posts in P&N.

You can't even post in a PFI thread without bringing politics and personal attacks into it, yet we're supposed to believe you don't moderate in a biased fashion? LOL.

You can't even post in PFI without reading a post before opening your mouth to change feet. Fear No Evil raised the issue that I called him a "subhuman piece of shit," not me. But since he did, and I don't deny doing so, explaining the circumstances of doing so is in order. Consider:

1. What I called him when posting under my own acccount has nothing to do or post as "Senior AnandTech Moderator," from the OP.
   
2. As noted, I have called several members a "subhuman piece of shit" for precisely one reason, they have posted to support the Bush administration's use of TORTURE.

As noted, there's a reason why the world has labeled TORTURE as a CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY. If you aren't one of those who has posted to support the Bush Administrations' crimes against humanity, this doesn't apply to you.

If you happen to be one of those who has posted to support the Bush Administrations' crimes against humanity, I hope I got around to calling you a "subhuman piece of shit," as well. If not, I hope you get the picture, and you're properly offended, now.

In any case, I don't apologize to anyone for having posted calling anyone who has supported their crimes against humanity a "subhuman piece of shit." If you have a problem with that, it's your problem.

If you have a problem with the fact that it's even part of this discussion, remember, I didn't bring it up. You can piss and moan to Fear No Evil for raising the issue in the first place.

Now you are just a liar. My ONLY post to you in this thread before you went off on me was, and I QUOTE:

If being a fair and consistent moderator is such a burden you could step down as well? The old 'If you don't like it, leave' line is old. When you have as many members complaining about this as you guys do, its not the members that are the problem.

To which you responded:

Like you, a few of other lying right wingnut looney tunes and who else?

You personally attacked me, and called me a liar. Then proceeded with this:

Fear No Evil is one of our resident lying, fear and hate mongering right wingnut jackasses, and his posts in P&N Are Exhibit A. Read them if you have the stomach to do so. He still has a bug up his mean spirited ass because he was given time outs for such mild offenses as wishing someone would shoot me in the back of the head. No shit! He really posted that and more directed at me.

Again personally attacked me and brought up an incident we had in P&N.. How was that even remotely relevant given what I said to you? And then you proceeded to tell me to stick my thumb up my ass and spin.

So clearly your statement:

You can't even post in PFI without reading a post before opening your mouth to change feet. Fear No Evil raised the issue that I called him a "subhuman piece of shit," not me. But since he did, and I don't deny doing so, explaining the circumstances of doing so is in order.

So.. clearly that statement by you is an OUTRIGHT LIE. I made NO MENTION of P&N in regards to you until YOU decided to call me names like 'liar', 'right wingnut', among other things. I think the only one here who needs to take their foot out of their mouth is YOU.

Care to apologize for your lack of accuracy in your statement that *I* brought it up? The only reason I brought up you calling me a sub-human piece of shit is because you stated the following that I was a hateful poster in P&N. I was showing how YOU are as well.. But that was WELL after you had already brought up P&N into this thread.

But, as I have proven - Alchemize's statement is 100% and totally accurate. YOU personally attacked and brought politics into this thread first.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: alchemize
Fair enough, you're posting entirely as a member. You're dragging your P&N tripe into PFI. I can't wait to see your warning/vacation from another mod.

/cricket cricket

I hope you have a lot of crickets. Read the thread. I did NOT drag politics into this thread. Fear No Evil raised the issue by noting that I had called him a "subhuman piece of shit," which has nothing to do with the OP's subject. However, he DID bring it up, and without context, it would be a very rude thing to call him.

That's why I replied to give that context in which I called him a "subhuman piece of shit."

Do you have a more appropriate, hopefully MORE insulting, term that applies to those who would commit or advocate committing CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY like TORTURE? If so, LMK, and maybe I'll start using that as an alternative.

TIA :beer: :thumbsup:

How about "Galactically inconsequential and incomprehensibly malinformed form of subdural infection on the body politic"

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: daw123
My thoughts on the matter.
(3) All decisions are by committee; i.e. a decision cannot be made by a single mod, but by two or ideally three or more mods, whereby a decision can be reached by majority vote. This would be too time-consuming and impractical.

(4) Numerous mods and a single senior mod that oversees and can over-rule any contentious decisions. I suppose this should be Derek, but since he rarely makes an appearance here... well this obviously doesn't work, so who's policing the police???

It seems as if we are supposed to have (4), but we actually have (2).

In addition, a three strike policy or something similar could be implemented, like most people have at work for misconduct, gross misconduct, etc. If a mod breaches the rules that he / she is supposed to be upholding, then he / she has several strikes, before he / she is demoted as a mod. Basically, the mods should abide by the same rules as everyone else.

Since, I don't own this forum I have to and I will abide by this forum's rules, so I'll shut up now.

For what it's worth, a lot of decisions ARE made by committee. A lot of the moderators, even those being accused of being biased, frequently will ask the other moderators for their opinions before taking action. And, moderator actions HAVE been reversed, vacations reduced, etc.

Also, while consistency isn't perfect, what a lot of people seem to not be taking into account is that we take into account a poster's history when deciding on some course of action. If you're constantly helpful to other posters, you might get a little more slack than someone who does nothing but troll and argue all day. If you have a clean slate, we're more likely to give you a break than if you've been vacationed 3 or 4 times in the past year.

 

[alchemize]

So when this thread gets locked, it's the malcontents, and Harvey the member played no part in it.

/stepping out of the thread

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: daw123
My thoughts on the matter.
(3) All decisions are by committee; i.e. a decision cannot be made by a single mod, but by two or ideally three or more mods, whereby a decision can be reached by majority vote. This would be too time-consuming and impractical.

(4) Numerous mods and a single senior mod that oversees and can over-rule any contentious decisions. I suppose this should be Derek, but since he rarely makes an appearance here... well this obviously doesn't work, so who's policing the police???

It seems as if we are supposed to have (4), but we actually have (2).

In addition, a three strike policy or something similar could be implemented, like most people have at work for misconduct, gross misconduct, etc. If a mod breaches the rules that he / she is supposed to be upholding, then he / she has several strikes, before he / she is demoted as a mod. Basically, the mods should abide by the same rules as everyone else.

Since, I don't own this forum I have to and I will abide by this forum's rules, so I'll shut up now.

For what it's worth, a lot of decisions ARE made by committee. A lot of the moderators, even those being accused of being biased, frequently will ask the other moderators for their opinions before taking action. And, moderator actions HAVE been reversed, vacations reduced, etc.

Also, while consistency isn't perfect, what a lot of people seem to not be taking into account is that we take into account a poster's history when deciding on some course of action. If you're constantly helpful to other posters, you might get a little more slack than someone who does nothing but troll and argue all day. If you have a clean slate, we're more likely to give you a break than if you've been vacationed 3 or 4 times in the past year.

I think that has been articulated a few times. There will always be extenuating and mitigating circumstances regarding punitive action. It is part of Justice!
As I've been reading and thinking in this forum what I think the issue many are 'up in arms' over is not what you've addressed, but I think you have actually... maybe, is some Mods post as members using the same or similar wording as members who get 'convicted' but the Mod/member in question is not even indicted for breaking a rule when it is obvious to some that they had broken the rule. The penalty phase follows that determination, usually.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: daw123
My thoughts on the matter.
(3) All decisions are by committee; i.e. a decision cannot be made by a single mod, but by two or ideally three or more mods, whereby a decision can be reached by majority vote. This would be too time-consuming and impractical.

(4) Numerous mods and a single senior mod that oversees and can over-rule any contentious decisions. I suppose this should be Derek, but since he rarely makes an appearance here... well this obviously doesn't work, so who's policing the police???

It seems as if we are supposed to have (4), but we actually have (2).

In addition, a three strike policy or something similar could be implemented, like most people have at work for misconduct, gross misconduct, etc. If a mod breaches the rules that he / she is supposed to be upholding, then he / she has several strikes, before he / she is demoted as a mod. Basically, the mods should abide by the same rules as everyone else.

Since, I don't own this forum I have to and I will abide by this forum's rules, so I'll shut up now.

For what it's worth, a lot of decisions ARE made by committee. A lot of the moderators, even those being accused of being biased, frequently will ask the other moderators for their opinions before taking action. And, moderator actions HAVE been reversed, vacations reduced, etc.

Also, while consistency isn't perfect, what a lot of people seem to not be taking into account is that we take into account a poster's history when deciding on some course of action. If you're constantly helpful to other posters, you might get a little more slack than someone who does nothing but troll and argue all day. If you have a clean slate, we're more likely to give you a break than if you've been vacationed 3 or 4 times in the past year.

I don't think most of the people are complaining about 'giving people a break' who don't have a record. Its when moderators engage in the same activity that they BAN people for that they themselves engage in.

In this thread alone I've been personally attacked by Harvey who said things that if anyone else would have done first in this thread would probably have gotten them a vacation. Can you honestly say that if I went off on the Obama Administration and attacked Harvey like he did to me that I wouldn't have been AT THE VERY LEAST warned for it? And more than likely BANNED?

 

[LunarRay]

Well, there it is...

 

[MotionMan]

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: daw123
My thoughts on the matter.
(3) All decisions are by committee; i.e. a decision cannot be made by a single mod, but by two or ideally three or more mods, whereby a decision can be reached by majority vote. This would be too time-consuming and impractical.

(4) Numerous mods and a single senior mod that oversees and can over-rule any contentious decisions. I suppose this should be Derek, but since he rarely makes an appearance here... well this obviously doesn't work, so who's policing the police???

It seems as if we are supposed to have (4), but we actually have (2).

In addition, a three strike policy or something similar could be implemented, like most people have at work for misconduct, gross misconduct, etc. If a mod breaches the rules that he / she is supposed to be upholding, then he / she has several strikes, before he / she is demoted as a mod. Basically, the mods should abide by the same rules as everyone else.

Since, I don't own this forum I have to and I will abide by this forum's rules, so I'll shut up now.

For what it's worth, a lot of decisions ARE made by committee. A lot of the moderators, even those being accused of being biased, frequently will ask the other moderators for their opinions before taking action. And, moderator actions HAVE been reversed, vacations reduced, etc.

Also, while consistency isn't perfect, what a lot of people seem to not be taking into account is that we take into account a poster's history when deciding on some course of action. If you're constantly helpful to other posters, you might get a little more slack than someone who does nothing but troll and argue all day. If you have a clean slate, we're more likely to give you a break than if you've been vacationed 3 or 4 times in the past year.

I appreciate that information, DrPizza, thank you. The real issue, then, I guess, is why moderators and certain other members are allowed to get away with murder while regular members are reprimanded or vacationed for the same or lesser actions.

Has a moderator or retired moderator ever been vacationed?

MotionMan

 

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: MotionMan

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: daw123
My thoughts on the matter.
(3) All decisions are by committee; i.e. a decision cannot be made by a single mod, but by two or ideally three or more mods, whereby a decision can be reached by majority vote. This would be too time-consuming and impractical.

(4) Numerous mods and a single senior mod that oversees and can over-rule any contentious decisions. I suppose this should be Derek, but since he rarely makes an appearance here... well this obviously doesn't work, so who's policing the police???

It seems as if we are supposed to have (4), but we actually have (2).

In addition, a three strike policy or something similar could be implemented, like most people have at work for misconduct, gross misconduct, etc. If a mod breaches the rules that he / she is supposed to be upholding, then he / she has several strikes, before he / she is demoted as a mod. Basically, the mods should abide by the same rules as everyone else.

Since, I don't own this forum I have to and I will abide by this forum's rules, so I'll shut up now.

For what it's worth, a lot of decisions ARE made by committee. A lot of the moderators, even those being accused of being biased, frequently will ask the other moderators for their opinions before taking action. And, moderator actions HAVE been reversed, vacations reduced, etc.

Also, while consistency isn't perfect, what a lot of people seem to not be taking into account is that we take into account a poster's history when deciding on some course of action. If you're constantly helpful to other posters, you might get a little more slack than someone who does nothing but troll and argue all day. If you have a clean slate, we're more likely to give you a break than if you've been vacationed 3 or 4 times in the past year.

I appreciate that information, DrPizza, thank you. The real issue, then, I guess, is why moderators and certain other members are allowed to get away with murder while regular members are reprimanded or vacationed for the same or lesser actions.

Has a moderator or retired moderator ever been vacationed?

MotionMan

We have former mods in this thread threatening to ban people!