an open letter to the mods from Whiney G. Weingarten

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (462 of them)

the insult to injury "haha i get to call you a name in the admin log as i ban you" thing is pretty disgusting. wasn't that little text box made to explain/justify mod actions?

Danble Perritration (some dude), Thursday, 4 November 2010 12:34 (ten years ago) link

and imo if you have notions that mods must have an extra layer of skin than other posters, fair enough. It's fair enough on the other side of the coin- have an extra layer of courtesy when dealing with them in their modding capacity.

cant believe you sb'd me for that (darraghmac), Thursday, 4 November 2010 12:36 (ten years ago) link

xp well yeah that was not ideal tbh

cant believe you sb'd me for that (darraghmac), Thursday, 4 November 2010 12:36 (ten years ago) link

different rules apply for whiney, in fact I believe they're called the "whiney house rules"

dayo, Thursday, 4 November 2010 12:37 (ten years ago) link

I would just like a pat on the head for not posting any of the dumb shit that I typed and then erased. thanking u

honkin' on joey kramer (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Thursday, 4 November 2010 12:40 (ten years ago) link

'cider-by-cop house rules

nakhchivan, Thursday, 4 November 2010 12:41 (ten years ago) link

the whole case here seems to be 'whiney should be treated like an adult!'.

Eh, why? Like the guy a lot but maturity aint his modus operandi afaict.

The 27 days thing, yeah does seem excessive- not hi dere's call.

cant believe you sb'd me for that (darraghmac), Thursday, 4 November 2010 12:41 (ten years ago) link

don't know why you think this is about coddling Whiney. it's more like "if he was at 49, maybe the mod should have just taken that knowledge as some comfort, and waited a couple days for the guys pissing him off to get himself banned."

Danble Perritration (some dude), Thursday, 4 November 2010 12:43 (ten years ago) link

if you dont want people to give you shit re being a mod, just dont be a mod, easy

And if you don't want to end up being tempbanned, don't be a dick to people all the time, easy.

Matt DC, Thursday, 4 November 2010 12:43 (ten years ago) link

it's still completely unclear to me what whiney is meant to have done

rip whiney g weingarten 03/11 never forget (history mayne), Thursday, 4 November 2010 12:46 (ten years ago) link

ban durations are not a force of nature. disingenuous to shift blame to the code.

caek, Thursday, 4 November 2010 12:46 (ten years ago) link

i've never been banned and probably never will unless i suicide-by-cop out of frustration with you guys, so that's not advice you need to give me. don't know why it's so ridiculous to hold mods to a higher standard than the most aggressive bannable posters.

Danble Perritration (some dude), Thursday, 4 November 2010 12:47 (ten years ago) link

afaict dp has a pretty solid record of implementing and justifying his decisions in a way that results in clusterfucks. the fact that many of the people posting on this thread sbed whiney themselves is evidence of this, matt, not evidence that dan is modding well. and he doesn't even seem to like being a mod that much. perhaps a sabbatical?

caek, Thursday, 4 November 2010 12:49 (ten years ago) link

speaking personally i'd much rather mods dealt tempbans independent of the sb system if it's merited. There was accusations of tinkering before iirc ?enrique?

cant believe you sb'd me for that (darraghmac), Thursday, 4 November 2010 12:50 (ten years ago) link

The tempban was independent of the Suggest Ban system.

Matt DC, Thursday, 4 November 2010 12:50 (ten years ago) link

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 (ten years ago) link

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

cant believe you sb'd me for that (darraghmac), Thursday, 4 November 2010 12:52 (ten years ago) link

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

cant believe you sb'd me for that (darraghmac), Thursday, 4 November 2010 12:53 (ten years ago) link

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.

nakhchivan, Thursday, 4 November 2010 12:54 (ten years ago) link

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

nakhchivan, Thursday, 4 November 2010 12:54 (ten years ago) link

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

caek, Thursday, 4 November 2010 12:55 (ten years ago) link

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.

Danble Perritration (some dude), Thursday, 4 November 2010 12:56 (ten years ago) link

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.

Matt DC, Thursday, 4 November 2010 12:57 (ten years ago) link

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.

caek, Thursday, 4 November 2010 13:01 (ten years ago) link

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.

Matt DC, Thursday, 4 November 2010 13:34 (ten years ago) link

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.

Matt DC, Thursday, 4 November 2010 13:41 (ten years ago) link

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

cant believe you sb'd me for that (darraghmac), Thursday, 4 November 2010 13:42 (ten years ago) link

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

rip whiney g weingarten 03/11 never forget (history mayne), Thursday, 4 November 2010 13:44 (ten years ago) link

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.

lol tea partiers and their fat fingers (HI DERE), Thursday, 4 November 2010 13:44 (ten years ago) link

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

lol tea partiers and their fat fingers (HI DERE), Thursday, 4 November 2010 13:45 (ten years ago) link

whuuuuuuuut?

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

rip whiney g weingarten 03/11 never forget (history mayne), Thursday, 4 November 2010 13:49 (ten years ago) link

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

nakhchivan, Thursday, 4 November 2010 13:51 (ten years ago) link

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.

caek, Thursday, 4 November 2010 13:54 (ten years ago) link

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

cant believe you sb'd me for that (darraghmac), Thursday, 4 November 2010 13:59 (ten years ago) link

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

dayo, Thursday, 4 November 2010 14:00 (ten years ago) link

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.

Danble Perritration (some dude), Thursday, 4 November 2010 14:04 (ten years ago) link

both those traits make him a pretty good mod too

cant believe you sb'd me for that (darraghmac), Thursday, 4 November 2010 14:06 (ten years ago) link

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

rip whiney g weingarten 03/11 never forget (history mayne), Thursday, 4 November 2010 14:07 (ten years ago) link

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.

lol tea partiers and their fat fingers (HI DERE), Thursday, 4 November 2010 14:09 (ten years ago) link

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.

Unfrozen Caveman Board-Lawyer (WmC), Thursday, 4 November 2010 14:12 (ten years ago) link

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.

lol tea partiers and their fat fingers (HI DERE), Thursday, 4 November 2010 14:13 (ten years ago) link

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.

lol tea partiers and their fat fingers (HI DERE), Thursday, 4 November 2010 14:18 (ten years ago) link

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.

Danble Perritration (some dude), Thursday, 4 November 2010 14:22 (ten years ago) link

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.

Danble Perritration (some dude), Thursday, 4 November 2010 14:26 (ten years ago) link

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.

Danble Perritration (some dude), Thursday, 4 November 2010 14:28 (ten years ago) link

i.e. i banned princess tamtam

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

:-(

am0n, Thursday, 4 November 2010 14:29 (ten years ago) link

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

wakafledia (k3vin k.), Thursday, 4 November 2010 14:29 (ten years ago) link

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

cant believe you sb'd me for that (darraghmac), Thursday, 4 November 2010 14:31 (ten years ago) link

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

lol tea partiers and their fat fingers (HI DERE), Thursday, 4 November 2010 14:32 (ten years ago) link

stfu dan you like granny weatherwax ffs.

cant believe you sb'd me for that (darraghmac), Thursday, 4 November 2010 14:33 (ten years ago) link


This thread has been locked by an administrator

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.