an open letter to the mods from Whiney G. Weingarten

If you guys want I can officially lift Whiney's mod-inflicted temp ban and then ban him for 30 days because he's on 52 Suggest Bans. Would that help clear this up?

afaict if someone was to ban themselves after a full and public explanation there'd be three clusterfucks within a minute

xp yeah matt was respondin to some dude above re temp bans being kept independent

no reason to cry for whiney but it was a pretty whimsical and arbitrary ban. maybe 'he had it coming' is true but it doesn't look good as precedent.

If you guys want I can officially lift Whiney's mod-inflicted temp ban and then ban him for 30 days because he's on 52 Suggest Bans. Would that help clear this up?

― Matt DC, Thursday, 4 November 2010 12:52 (2 minutes ago)

i think so? kinda

works for me, if you also take away dan's mod powers. who will police the police?

If you guys want I can officially lift Whiney's mod-inflicted temp ban and then ban him for 30 days because he's on 52 Suggest Bans. Would that help clear this up?

― Matt DC, Thursday, November 4, 2010 8:52 AM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

I don't feel comfortable speaking for Whiney or anyone else, but tbh I think that would be fair. would be kind of ridiculous if he served his 27 days, then got SB ban sentence back to back, seems like it should be one or the other.

I was taking the piss a bit with that post, but I think he'll be off for a month whatever happens.

I mean it comes down to it that the mods agreed with Whiney about the rape username, it was being dealt with. But Whiney was being pointlessly sarcastic and antagonistic (in the way he is with everyone) for no reason other than to be a dick and provoke a fight.

He could have actually put his point rationally and he didn't, which is why he's tempbanned and Some Dude and whoever else is making their point more-or-less straighforwardly on this thread isn't.

I mean it comes down to it that the mods agreed with Whiney about the rape username, it was being dealt with. But Whiney was being pointlessly sarcastic and antagonistic (in the way he is with everyone) for no reason other than to be a dick and provoke a fight.

dealing with this sort of low level assholery (as in not racist/hacking/etc.) trolling is exactly what i thought the sb system was for, at least that's how it was explained (most vocally by dan). if you're not willing to trust it to do this as mods then i have no idea why we even have it any more.

Yeah I don't disagree with that and I without wanting to debate the rights and wrongs of the SB system yet again, the system broadly works. As it happens, in this case the system agreed with Dan, another two people SBed Whiney almost immediately.

The thing that's always exasperating about these discussions is that it's always couched in two things. Firstly is the "who watches the Watchmen?" line, implying it's a shady conspiracy to keep certain people we don't like down, just because we don't like them. Trust me, if I thought I could just get away with banning everyone I don't like then there would be a hell of a lot more people on the permaban list. Actually, the mods ARE accountable. They're accountable to the other mods, and above all to the coders who have the ultimate say. We disagree on things more than people think and that has an effect on policy.

The other thing, which is particularly irritating, is that there's nearly always a "we think X should not be a mod" strand, like people are actively aiming to have someone's mod privs removed. Everyone's entitled to express that opinion but ultimately the same ten or so people who are always on these threads do not have any say in it, that's purely a matter for the people who run the site, and that's always been the case, from Tom Ewing onwards. I'm sure if Keith and Stet seriously thought that any mod was not trusted by the community to moderate the site, then they wouldn't be moderating the site. If you don't like that, tough, really.

It's also worth pointing out that if you look at Dan's modding history, he almost always overturns a temp ban after a day or so and my guess is that would have happened here as well. The 29 day thing is a quirk of the system based on the number of times he's been tempbanned in the past.

It's irrelevant now as Whiney's been 51'ed anyway. I'd imagine he'd be let back in a month, but at the same time going "when I return I will continue to post as I always have" is not really the way to persuade mods to treat you leniently.

remember what happened the mouth of sauron, man, dont be that guy threatening the mob.

I'd imagine he'd be let back in a month, but at the same time going "when I return I will continue to post as I always have" is not really the way to persuade mods to treat you leniently.

― Matt DC, Thursday, November 4, 2010 1:41 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark

not really seeing whiney's steez as particularly offensive

guess i've been here a long time, seen a lotta shit go down

I was about to write Matt's last post almost verbatim (and in fact has said similar to him privately before this).

If Whiney comes back and continues to be an abusive ass with a secret "oh but it's hust jokes, I really love you guys FUCK YOU haha I'm a scamp!" thread on 77, I will permaban him. ILX does not need that shit.

If "spend more time being civil than uncivil to other posters" is too much for you to bear, don't post here.

whuuuuuuuut?

that excludes most of the board's a-list, past and present

don't worry, there's always room for b-list dicks and sociopaths

OK, if you've got our backs when people are being assholes and are capable of doing this without the guidance of SB counts behind the scenes, which is what you seem to be saying, lets ditch the SB system.

Firstly is the "who watches the Watchmen?" line, implying it's a shady conspiracy to keep certain people we don't like down, just because we don't like them.

That's not my point. My point is that, like a lot of aspects of moderation (Sb thresholds, ban durations), you act like the mod roster is a force of nature, and not something that's up for debate. Every time this happens you just circle the wagons.

there's nearly always a "we think X should not be a mod" strand, like people are actively aiming to have someone's mod privs removed. Everyone's entitled to express that opinion but ultimately the same ten or so people who are always on these threads do not have any say in it, that's purely a matter for the people who run the site, and that's always been the case, from Tom Ewing onwards

Absolutely. But if someone acting as mod doesn't have the trust of regular users then surely this is at least relevant to the decision you guys are making, since it impairs their ability to mod. This "if someone" is not hypothetical concern trolling by the way. I don't trust dan to make the right decisions. I didn't trust tom either, but he was lolz. Not saying that should be a deal breaker though. Just letting u know how i feel.

there are huge gaps btwn what sb deals with and some other banworthy behaviours.

I propose that there be one Super Mod on ILX who can do whatever he/she wants. however, each user will also be given a Super Mod Button. when a user presses the Super Mod Button, the current Super Mod will be permabanned and the user who pressed the button will become the new Super Mod. The Mod Is Dead, Long Live The Mod

The thing that's always exasperating about these discussions is that it's always couched in two things. Firstly is the "who watches the Watchmen?" line, implying it's a shady conspiracy to keep certain people we don't like down, just because we don't like them. Trust me, if I thought I could just get away with banning everyone I don't like then there would be a hell of a lot more people on the permaban list. Actually, the mods ARE accountable. They're accountable to the other mods, and above all to the coders who have the ultimate say. We disagree on things more than people think and that has an effect on policy.

The other thing, which is particularly irritating, is that there's nearly always a "we think X should not be a mod" strand, like people are actively aiming to have someone's mod privs removed. Everyone's entitled to express that opinion but ultimately the same ten or so people who are always on these threads do not have any say in it, that's purely a matter for the people who run the site, and that's always been the case, from Tom Ewing onwards. I'm sure if Keith and Stet seriously thought that any mod was not trusted by the community to moderate the site, then they wouldn't be moderating the site. If you don't like that, tough, really.

― Matt DC, Thursday, November 4, 2010 9:34 AM (18 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

well, maybe the only way they'll know who the community trusts to moderate the site is if we have these kinds of threads now and again. if pestering little people like me are so powerless you might as well at least let us talk.

I do understand that it kind of takes things in a weird uncomfortable direction to talk about the character or temperament of people who mod, but honestly I feel it does matter -- Dan's a great poster partly because of how hilariously inflexible he is about his opinions and how mercilessly he shoots down others' arguments. that's great fun in a thread about Justin Timberlake, not so much when he's the one deciding who gets to post or not for the next month. I mean, there are a lot of great personalities on this board, but for pretty obvious reasons I'd be fine with nabisco modding, Alex in NYC not so much.

both those traits make him a pretty good mod too

for pretty obvious reasons I'd be fine with nabisco modding, Alex in NYC not so much.

― Danble Perritration (some dude), Thursday, November 4, 2010 2:04 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark

mostly agree with some dude but ehh whatever @ this

As much as it's pissing me off, you can say whatever you want to about me and how you perceive my personality on these threads as it is pertinent to the discussion. Neither nabisco or Alex in NYC is, and dragging their names into this clusterfuck is unfair to both of them.

That's not my point. My point is that, like a lot of aspects of moderation (Sb thresholds, ban durations), you act like the mod roster is a force of nature, and not something that's up for debate. Every time this happens you just circle the wagons.

I honestly have not seen that happen in this situ, unless saying "I honestly have not seen that happen" is the kind of thing you hold up as circling the wagons.

Any instance of the moderators agree with each other is "circling the wagons". The problem is that we have all of our arguments elsewhere and have generally reached consensus by the time these threads start running, so the people who always post on them feel like they're talking to a brick wall.

Like, and maybe I'll get shit for posting this, but Matt strongly disagreed with me banning Whiney and has been making the same "he was going to get 51'ed anyway" argument being put forward here.

Posting the word "dumbass" in the admin log was wrong. I had about a paragraph of measured text in there that I ended up deleting because it seemed stupid to put an essay in the admin log. I shouldn't have done that.

wow, didn't realize it was going to be horribly offensive and controversial to use a couple of actual poster display names as shorthand for "even-tempered poster" and "hotheaded poster," sorry guys.

if someone gets banned immediately after mouthing off to one mod, and the other mods back that mod up later, it looks like one person made a decision and everyone else kinda shrugged and went well let's just stand together on this, as opposed to the mods all having a conversation and deciding together to ban the sassmouth. that's not a conspiracy theory, I'm just telling you how it looks logically to anyone paying attention.

but i do really appreciate you admitting that the namecalling in the admin log was wrong, that's definitely one of the major points of contention here.

i.e. i banned princess tamtam

― J0rdan S., Thursday, November 4, 2010 2:04 AM

:-(

there are huge gaps btwn what sb deals with and some other banworthy behaviours.

― cant believe you sb'd me for that (darraghmac), Thursday, November 4, 2010 9:59 AM (21 minutes ago)

yeah but dan decided that because he's a mod he got to have two or three SB's for the one time whiney pissed him off instead of one SB like everyone else on the site. seems fair to me

the "he was gonna get 51'd anyway" line is irrelevant - dan perry was out of line, it's not the first time this has happened, own up to it

what fuckin 2 or 3 sb's? Jeez this discussion can happen without shit-talk like this, cmon.

No it can't, and that is the problem with these conversations.

stfu dan you like granny weatherwax ffs.

ur on shaky ground as it is

k3vin k. using posters real names when shit gets heated

oh hey look everyone i just told brute mod hi dere to stfu guess i'm about to be permabanned, cos that's what this dude is like, right?

Rmde

this is a good one to let go, send buffy dvds

ban darraghmac

wondering where some dude is taking this w/ his dn tbh

That display name is at least a couple of days old, I assume it has nothing to do with anything happening here.

yeah it's due for a change anyway

better?

peritonitis wd be better i think

If Whiney comes back and continues to be an abusive ass with a secret "oh but it's hust jokes, I really love you guys FUCK YOU haha I'm a scamp!" thread on 77, I will permaban him. ILX does not need that shit.

― lol tea partiers and their fat fingers (HI DERE), Thursday, November 4, 2010 9:44 AM (49 minutes ago) Bookmark

feeling the futility of all this now that the ultimate verdict has been cast

i don't think whiney is the biggest asshole on the board, imo there are much bigger and more gaping assholes, he's just the most visible because he posts a lot and often in all caps

I "like" whiney fine but surely part of being a big asshole is related to the frequency of yr posts?

I raise this in a philosophical, probing-at-definitions fashion, not cos I've got a pony in this race.

i'd say visibility is the "big" part of "big asshole"

whineys problem imho is mostly that he has no taste

Anyway, caek and some dude have a point; their distrust in me and my judgment is going to make whatever I do as a moderator seem suspect and making mistakes like letting someone who is actively attempting to frustrate me succeed reinforces that.

I am, for better or worse, firmly of the opinion that actively attempting to frustrate and annoy a moderator (Note: not a poster; in this particular instance, I was, as a site mod, asking a poster to change a display name that others, including Whiney, had found offensive, and Whiney was spending his time derailing his own thread and making the situation worse than the offensive display name was. I have not and have never used moderation powers against someone who was arguing with me poster to poster and, aside from the entirely unlikely case of people suddenly deciding to drop n-bombs at me, I never will.) opens you to having moderation action taken against you. If you disagree with that and feel you have a better way, I offer you my moderation powers (pending approval from the other site mods).