Thoughts on new policy (sorry guys, but lite-spam)

Ravager · Post by **Ravager** » Sat Aug 19, 2006 8:44 am

Vicsun wrote:Hey, are you still wondering why you got demodded?

I'm wondering why I got demoted without any reasoning to it beyond the pitiful reason I was provided, yes. And you know that.

So, will you tell me?

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Sat Aug 19, 2006 8:46 am

Ravager wrote:Although I think I will talk to Buck about your behaviour towards me and others.

This you are of course always welcome to do.

Luis Antonio] Anyway wrote:

Those who fail to see that leaking information from the Moderator forum is a problem, should consider this when wondering why events have occurred the way they have.

Vicsun · Post by **Vicsun** » Sat Aug 19, 2006 8:47 am

Ravager wrote:I'm wondering why I got demoted without any reasoning to it beyond the pitiful reason I was provided, yes. And you know that.

Okay, I just wanted a heads up

When you figure it out be sure to PM me or something because I might not read the thread

edit to respond to your edit: you sucked pretty badly as a mod. Sorry dude

Ravager · Post by **Ravager** » Sat Aug 19, 2006 8:50 am

Vicsun wrote:Okay, I just wanted a heads up When you figure it out be sure to PM me or something because I might not read the thread

edit to respond to your edit: you sucked pretty badly as a mod. Sorry dude

Well, if you have something to complain about my moderating methods, why don't you tell us all, Vicsun? I'm keen to hear your points.

Vicsun · Post by **Vicsun** » Sat Aug 19, 2006 8:57 am

Ravager wrote:Well, if you have something to complain about my moderating methods, why don't you tell us all, Vicsun? I'm keen to hear your points.

Well for one, as hard as you may try you simply cannot distance yourself

slade · Post by **slade** » Sat Aug 19, 2006 9:01 am

Vicsun wrote:Well for one, as hard as you may try you simply cannot distance yourself

*hugs viscun* really can you let go with a guy like me around

Chanak · Post by **Chanak** » Sat Aug 19, 2006 9:02 am

C Elegans wrote:I am not going to post any confidential information regarding moderator policies and bannings. Do contact Buck with your demands, please. I am merely stating that it is a manipulative strategy to make false claims about things that members cannot check themselves since it is admin or moderator issues.

I think the above statement by CE sums it up well enough. Buck asked the membership to consider that in his statement, and it's sad that certain members persist in conducting some sort of witch-hunt, making a public spectacle out of their behavior in the process.

I encourage every member with real questions and concerns to contact Buck Satan via the private messaging system. This has always been his policy, and it hasn't changed now.

As a condition of membership here on the GameBanshee forums, members are required to abide by the Forum Rules. Those Forum Rules are pretty clear regarding issues with administration and/or moderator actions: take it to PM. Members are welcome to PM any of the moderating team or Buck Satan himself. I know that as a moderator, if I feel I cannot answer any question sent my way, I forward it on to Buck. If Buck Satan doesn't immediately reply to you, consider this: this site has thousands of members, and requires a great deal of administrative work to maintain. Buck, being a real person, also has the daily concerns and duties of life to attend to in addition to this website. Keep that in mind, and be patient. Buck Satan cares very much about GameBanshee, its members, and any legimate concerns you might have.

In parting, I would also like to address something I have seen pop up a few times, here in this thread, and elsewhere: being removed from the moderation team does not constitute a "demotion." Perhaps this is so in the eyes of one who felt that being a moderator granted some sort of special status in the first place. Let me explain why it does not:

1. Moderators aren't paid;
2. Moderators are often the target of members' ill feelings regarding administrative actions, as amply demonstrated here in Speak Your Mind during the past 48 hours;
3. Moderators must constantly be aware of the need for discretion and confidentiality in the conduct of their duties;
4. Moderators often find themselves "on the spot," and so must utilize their judgment as clearly as possible when executing their duties. From time to time this invariably leads to ill feelings on the part of a member who disagrees with that judgment;
5. Moderators are members as all others are, subject to the same rules as everyone else is.

Point #4 is unfortunately the heart of the current spectacle going on in SYM right now. I realize that my comments here are lost on those few members who have decided to elevate their ill feelings beyond the confines of privacy, not content with the answers they received. Rather, my comments are here for the benefit of other members not so inclined. Truly, legitimate discussion regarding the thread cap was exhausted a few pages ago. I see no point in continuing on beating a dead horse.

Damuna_Nova · Post by **Damuna_Nova** » Sat Aug 19, 2006 9:08 am

Chanak wrote:I see no point in continuing on beating a dead horse.

It's good to know you're not into sadism, necrophilia and bestiality, Chanak.

Dottie · Post by **Dottie** » Sat Aug 19, 2006 9:12 am

@DJ Venom: I haven't followed the entire discussion, so I might have misunderstood somethings. But this is examples of incorrect information that have been posted on this board. Unfortunately most people here, including a few of them who have posted this don't have the possibility to judge whether this information is correct or not.

Louis and Ravager was demoted for:

Disagreeing with other moderators

Being too emotional

Being against the 1,5k thread rule

Ravager and Luis arguments in the moderator forum was ignored

The rule was made to limit spamthreads, supported by people who don't like them

In the past everything was always discussed with the members

There are also a few false claims that can be tested by everyone. I don't remember them all right now, but one is that moderators have to dislike spam threads. Just take a look back and see how many moderators who once frequented them, and yes, even before yesterday.

Chanak · Post by **Chanak** » Sat Aug 19, 2006 9:14 am

Damuna_Nova wrote:It's good to know you're not into sadism, necrophilia and bestiality, Chanak.

I'm glad you recognize this, DM. However, it should be apparent that I'm a masochistic glutton for punishment. :speech:

Vicsun · Post by **Vicsun** » Sat Aug 19, 2006 9:15 am

slade wrote:*hugs viscun* really can you let go with a guy like me around

I'm not sure what you mean all I know is you misspelt my name

Fiberfar · Post by **Fiberfar** » Sat Aug 19, 2006 9:16 am

Chanak wrote:I'm glad you recognize this, DM. However, it should be apparent that I'm a masochistic glutton for punishment. :speech:

You like boybands?

Vicsun · Post by **Vicsun** » Sat Aug 19, 2006 9:18 am

Dottie wrote:I don't remember them all right now, but one is that moderators have to dislike spam threads. Just take a look back and see how many moderators who once frequented them, and yes, even before yesterday.

I hate spam threads so much every time I think of a spam thread I experience a violent burst of diarrhea.

True story.

Ravager · Post by **Ravager** » Sat Aug 19, 2006 9:18 am

[QUOTE=Chanak]In parting, I would also like to address something I have seen pop up a few times, here in this thread, and elsewhere: being removed from the moderation team does not constitute a "demotion." Perhaps this is so in the eyes of one who felt that being a moderator granted some sort of special status in the first place. Let me explain why it does not:

1. Moderators aren't paid;
2. Moderators are often the target of members' ill feelings regarding administrative actions, as amply demonstrated here in Speak Your Mind during the past 48 hours;
3. Moderators must constantly be aware of the need for discretion and confidentiality in the conduct of their duties;
4. Moderators often find themselves "on the spot," and so must utilize their judgment as clearly as possible when executing their duties. From time to time this invariably leads to ill feelings on the part of a member who disagrees with that judgment;
5. Moderators are members as all others are, subject to the same rules as everyone else is.

Point #4 is unfortunately the heart of the current spectacle going on in SYM right now. I realize that my comments here are lost on those few members who have decided to elevate their ill feelings beyond the confines of privacy, not content with the answers they received. Rather, my comments are here for the benefit of other members not so inclined. Truly, legitimate discussion regarding the thread cap was exhausted a few pages ago. I see no point in continuing on beating a dead horse.[/QUOTE]

Should I call it a 'demotion in responsibilities' then? I do know the things that go with being a mod, I considered such things before I accepted the invitation I was given to become one.

Dottie · Post by **Dottie** » Sat Aug 19, 2006 9:23 am

Vicsun wrote: I hate spam threads so much every time I think of a spam thread I experience a violent burst of diarrhea.

True story.

Because I love you I really hate to do this, but I feel I have to.

Please, see it as "tough love".

http://www.gamebanshee.com/forums/speak ... post124440

http://www.gamebanshee.com/forums/speak ... #post85874

http://www.gamebanshee.com/forums/speak ... post148158

slade · Post by **slade** » Sat Aug 19, 2006 9:30 am

Vicsun wrote:I'm not sure what you mean all I know is you misspelt my name

I apologise for that I knew something looked wrong...havent slept in days.....guess thats my que

Vicsun · Post by **Vicsun** » Sat Aug 19, 2006 9:36 am

Dottie wrote:Because I love you I really hate to do this, but I feel I have to.

Please, see it as "tough love".

http://www.gamebanshee.com/forums/speak ... post124440

http://www.gamebanshee.com/forums/speak ... #post85874

http://www.gamebanshee.com/forums/speak ... post148158

Yeah, I remember the days when I was a happy-go-lucky 14-year old.

Oh, and just so that there's no misunderstanding the post you quoted was sarcasm - I actually love spam threads.

Darzog · Post by **Darzog** » Sat Aug 19, 2006 9:54 am

The only thing that I continue to struggle with is that the justifications for the change is listed as purely administrative; one being that it is easier for a SYM mod to manage and the other that it is better for the database to have shorter threads.

For the first point, no one other than a SYM mod can make this claim since they are the only ones affected (so they will have the best grasp on any impact the change might have). If anyone else raised the issue initially then this doesn't make sense.

For the second, Buck himself should have been the person to raise the issue. If Buck did not bring it up first, then it must not be that big a deal or he would have done something about it already. I cannot imagine Buck would recognize something that reduces the efficiency of the forum and do nothing about it until someone else asks about it.

Also if the second issue were substantial, I would think that there would have been debate or research into the limit to post counts. Trying to determine what number of posts would or would not impact the database. In science if you are trying to evaluate a new additive and you know that some amount is needed before seeing positive effects but too much will incur negative effects do you try a single dose and if it works call your research complete? No, you use statistics and sampling to bound the positive and negative effects to determine the valuable range of your additive and based on this information make a recommendation. Did the number of posts set to 1,500 followed normal objective procedures?
(Note this is a rhetorical question as I know that the Mod discussion won't be quoted or discussed here; I am merely contemplating how a purely administrative / technical change could have been approached.)

The change itself, as I have said several times, doesn't matter to me. Six of one, half-dozen of the other. This issue has raised some very emotional responses on both sides of the fence and members and mods alike have been behaving worse than I have seen in my (relatively short) time here. Between the blatently disrespectful behavior of the members (and some mods) to the heavy-handedness of the mods, this situation has deteriorated out of control. Now I'm not passing judgement or saying one side started it but both sides are to blame for letting it continue and both sides are partly justified (the disrespect deserves the heavy-handedness and the heavy-handedness deserves the disrespect).

We have already lost a well respected member of the forum over this discussion, and there are probably more casualties that will no longer be here even though they weren't banned. Respect on both sides of the field have taken a beating, but I don't think continued discussion is going to get us anywhere.

I would recommend to everyone that we let this lie. The policy is in place; if it is going to be removed it won't be for awhile. The people demoted and banned will not be reinstated (or if they are it also won't be for awhile). Everyone has said their piece, no one is changing each others mind. The only thing that continued discussion has caused is hurt feelings, and deteriorating bickering.

The amount of explanation and justification that you currently have is all you are going to get. No matter how much you feel you deserve more, it is not going to come. A forum (like a country) is based on the people, but unlike a country if you can't handle the way the admin rule then you are free to leave and go to another site or just not post here. If this change is really that momentous then the population of GB or at least SYM will reflect it. But you have no way of staging a revolution or coup so you have to either adapt to the change or leave.

I think everyone should drop this discussion since it is going nowhere, let everything settle out for a day or two and then restock. If you just can't deal with what has been happening here the last week then leave (temporarily or permanently). If you are still a little sore then just come back and you will find that things will return to a semblance of normality. The thing that most upsets me about this situation is Lestat's banning, not because I think it was unjustified but because it is the only permanent thing that has come from the discussion. Even the demotions didn't change Rav's or LA's ability to contribute to the site. Other than Lestat, this has all been something that can blow over in time.

Let's all just drop it before anything else irrevocable happens.

EDIT:
I just read back over the posts that have happened since I started writing... can we please keep the spam to a minimum in here? That goes for poorly veiled passive-aggressive diatribes as well.

Xandax · Post by **Xandax** » Sat Aug 19, 2006 9:59 am

Very nicely put @Darzog.

While I do not agree with everything you posted, you spoke your mind well.

Locke Da'averan · Post by **Locke Da'averan** » Sat Aug 19, 2006 10:00 am

Ravager wrote:What does quality matter, Locke? We're not here to provide some saga for people down the line to read, we post as we wish to, within the GB Rules. There's nothing wrong with that. If you don't like that part of SYM, you can just gloss over it.

Quality doesn't matter, but when ppl use stuff like:"hard to keep track of your posts/threads you're following" as an excuse for a negative side of limiting posts / thread into 1,500..

and who's accusing of breaking GB rules? All i said was that considering that there is no epic saga's anymore here and the same "discussion spam" doesn't continue for hundreds of posts(basically new topic of discussion/spam for everyday) it doesn't matter if it starts anew on a new thread now does it?