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)

I mean, maybe tell us WHAT, IF ANYTHING, YOU ACTUALLY WANT DONE and maybe then some sort of a decision can be made as and when everyone's calmed down.

If you're just saying "we'd like the mods to stop banning people in the heat of the moment" then yes I think everyone's agreed on that. I personally veer very strongly towards yellow carding and warning people first and then going ahead with the ban if they ignore that, but that's a personal view.

Matt DC, Thursday, 4 November 2010 16:44 (eleven years ago) link

i think moderation should be very much up to the individual churchgoer

caek, Thursday, 4 November 2010 16:46 (eleven years ago) link

I love lessons learned

bowlin' wolf (Edward III), Thursday, 4 November 2010 16:48 (eleven years ago) link

this is just a suggestion, no agenda, but i think whiney should be permabanned but encouraged to frequently submit open letters to the mods to be published here.

Roberto Spiralli, Thursday, 4 November 2010 16:48 (eleven years ago) link

man dont bring 'the church' into this

cant believe you sb'd me for that (darraghmac), Thursday, 4 November 2010 16:48 (eleven years ago) link

xp: ha

lol tea partiers and their fat fingers (HI DERE), Thursday, 4 November 2010 16:48 (eleven years ago) link

eventually to be collected into a handsomely bound volume

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Thursday, 4 November 2010 16:51 (eleven years ago) link

what about a handsomely bound whiney g. whinegarten?

What if mod was one of us? (kkvgz), Thursday, 4 November 2010 16:53 (eleven years ago) link

dmac i'm sorry i called you british

i don't think my point that it's unfair how dan gets a mod pass for comparably frowned-upon behavior while whiney gets banned is particularly unreasonable tho. i washalf-trolling too which was my fault. that is all

wakafledia (k3vin k.), Thursday, 4 November 2010 16:56 (eleven years ago) link

k3v has "always been a fractious poster"? maybe it's just cause i don't read the politics threads much or wherever he starts shit, to me he's like the least controversial autogoon/77 dude.

some dude, Thursday, 4 November 2010 16:56 (eleven years ago) link

top of the mornin kev, i respect ur passion even if shit gets heated

cant believe you sb'd me for that (darraghmac), Thursday, 4 November 2010 16:57 (eleven years ago) link

(new postin style is to always make up with ppl online before five pm)

cant believe you sb'd me for that (darraghmac), Thursday, 4 November 2010 16:59 (eleven years ago) link

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.

k3vin, did this happen or was this you half-trolling?

嬰ハ長調 (c sharp major), Thursday, 4 November 2010 17:00 (eleven years ago) link

i don't read the politics threads much

ha yeah maybe this is key

tho i expect feuding with deej is sort of subject-agnostic

Mannsplain Steamroller (goole), Thursday, 4 November 2010 17:01 (eleven years ago) link

If you're just saying "we'd like the mods to stop banning people in the heat of the moment" then yes I think everyone's agreed on that. I personally veer very strongly towards yellow carding and warning people first and then going ahead with the ban if they ignore that, but that's a personal view.

i think this is what i want done

call all destroyer, Thursday, 4 November 2010 17:01 (eleven years ago) link

btw i will cop to being both "nice guy" and "recalcitrant" depending on the type of thread i'm on, but i appreciate the backup some d and agree with your point and basically everything you've said itt

my new favorite mod

wakafledia (k3vin k.), Thursday, 4 November 2010 17:02 (eleven years ago) link

abbott otm

omar little, Thursday, 4 November 2010 17:06 (eleven years ago) link

k3v, still would like to know what, if anything, you want done.

Unfrozen Caveman Board-Lawyer (WmC), Thursday, 4 November 2010 17:13 (eleven years ago) link

He already got what he wanted, namely me quitting as a mod.

lol tea partiers and their fat fingers (HI DERE), Thursday, 4 November 2010 17:16 (eleven years ago) link

Dan, goddamnit, don't quit as mod.

What if mod was one of us? (kkvgz), Thursday, 4 November 2010 17:20 (eleven years ago) link

Why shouldn't I?

lol tea partiers and their fat fingers (HI DERE), Thursday, 4 November 2010 17:21 (eleven years ago) link

I mean, who in their right mind would put up with this unmitigated bullshit indefinitely?

lol tea partiers and their fat fingers (HI DERE), Thursday, 4 November 2010 17:21 (eleven years ago) link

take a day or two off and think about it

call all destroyer, Thursday, 4 November 2010 17:21 (eleven years ago) link

i vote for dan staying

omar little, Thursday, 4 November 2010 17:22 (eleven years ago) link

subtle dig at jj imo

cant believe you sb'd me for that (darraghmac), Thursday, 4 November 2010 17:23 (eleven years ago) link

seriously, dude--shit got heated today and that's the worst time to make any decision.

if you came back tomorrow and said "yeah, i'm definitely done" it would make a lot more sense imo

call all destroyer, Thursday, 4 November 2010 17:23 (eleven years ago) link

If you're just saying "we'd like the mods to stop banning people in the heat of the moment" then yes I think everyone's agreed on that. I personally veer very strongly towards yellow carding and warning people first and then going ahead with the ban if they ignore that, but that's a personal view.

If we're still pretending like the suggest ban system has some kind of corrective effect on poster's behaviour whereby we're supposed to "learn something" from it (because trust me, from experience, it does not function that way, it just tends to make one more defensive and paranoid) rather than the crude popularity contest it actually functions as, then perhaps it would actually make more sense to have an automatic yellow card which tells you, privately, when you are approaching the 51 limit? (and maybe give you some clue what you're getting hit for? Like what post, what thread has acrued the most bans?)

Because my personal experience is that mod bans *do* have a behavioural effect (mainly because you are *told* what you are being banned for; and because the ban is effective immediately, the punishment is actually linked to the negative behaviour in a Pavolovian sense, rather than just being inflicted - seemingly randomly - hours, days or even months after the mysterious "thing" you are supposed to be being punished for, which is how SB functions.)

And Suggest Bans, as they function now, do not; in fact they actively functioned to make me *more* defensive, more prone to meta and sniping and thinking "I'm being persecuted for having unpopular *opinions*".

Anyway, that's my new rule of "no meta" broken already, but honestly, if you want to have some discussion of how banning is supposed to work as a "reforming" tactic you might actually bother asking the repeat offenders if it works like you think it does - and the answer is, it fucking well doesn't, for all the reasons above.

Masonic Boom, Thursday, 4 November 2010 17:23 (eleven years ago) link

Why shouldn't I?

Because I'm imagining you being all goth about it right now.

What if mod was one of us? (kkvgz), Thursday, 4 November 2010 17:25 (eleven years ago) link

automatic yellow card which tells you, privately, when you are approaching the 51 limit?

This is an EXTREMELY sensible suggestion, in my opinion.

What if mod was one of us? (kkvgz), Thursday, 4 November 2010 17:26 (eleven years ago) link

"you have 8 SBs to comply"

omar little, Thursday, 4 November 2010 17:26 (eleven years ago) link

lol

What if mod was one of us? (kkvgz), Thursday, 4 November 2010 17:26 (eleven years ago) link

include a little ed-209 icon

omar little, Thursday, 4 November 2010 17:27 (eleven years ago) link

http://gifarchive.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/robo1.gif?w=510

omar little, Thursday, 4 November 2010 17:28 (eleven years ago) link

i have to think that any new mechanisms or code changes or board functions are just not going to happen

if people are arguing for changes they have to argue for either policy change or personnel change

Mannsplain Steamroller (goole), Thursday, 4 November 2010 17:29 (eleven years ago) link

see the problem that is kinda arising here is that peeps dont want the sb because it should be up to the mods to make decisions about what justifies a ban etc, but then a mod decides to ban someone and everyone is all up in arms about abusing their power or whatever so uh what exactly are people suggesting as a coherent way to do this?

xposts

O_o-O_0-o_O (jjjusten), Thursday, 4 November 2010 17:29 (eleven years ago) link

frankly the current situation where WGW got mod banned and then sbed within 24 hours could not illustrate this better imo - yet here we are still arguing about how mods mod. or at least i think that is what we are arguing about? idk anymore frankly

O_o-O_0-o_O (jjjusten), Thursday, 4 November 2010 17:32 (eleven years ago) link

i have to think that any new mechanisms or code changes or board functions are just not going to happen

this could be done manually with minimal extra work afaict

call all destroyer, Thursday, 4 November 2010 17:32 (eleven years ago) link

sb is not relevant to this discussion--if ppl want to talk sb they should take it elsewhere

call all destroyer, Thursday, 4 November 2010 17:32 (eleven years ago) link

"manually" = "policy", right? don't think we're disagreeing

Mannsplain Steamroller (goole), Thursday, 4 November 2010 17:33 (eleven years ago) link

I think it illustrates that 51 people does not make a consensus on ilx and no matter how this is done, people are gonna be pissed when their friends get in trouble, so you mods should just pat their heads and say "there, there...there, there, little ones" for a day or two until it blows over.

What if mod was one of us? (kkvgz), Thursday, 4 November 2010 17:35 (eleven years ago) link

the prob ppl are having with wgw is that it *appeared to be* a quick pull of the trigger and was accompanied by namecalling in the admin log.

i still don't know how widespread the thing whiney was doing was. could only find it a couple times in search. i could easily see how it could be misconstrued if you weren't aware of certain threads.

call all destroyer, Thursday, 4 November 2010 17:35 (eleven years ago) link

sorry goole i read too fast

call all destroyer, Thursday, 4 November 2010 17:35 (eleven years ago) link

I agree with kkvgz

Princess TamTam, Thursday, 4 November 2010 17:35 (eleven years ago) link

anyways, the fact that temp bans auto-increase is dumb and doesn't make any sense. what he was doing was not worth a 4 week ban. that caused ppl to freak as well.

call all destroyer, Thursday, 4 November 2010 17:37 (eleven years ago) link

k3v, still would like to know what, if anything, you want done.

― Unfrozen Caveman Board-Lawyer (WmC), Thursday, November 4, 2010 1:13 PM (16 minutes ago)

well when this started i didn't know that whiney had gotten 51'd too - originally i thought the temp ban was unnecessary but if he got SB'd there's not much to do there.

i also want a pony

wakafledia (k3vin k.), Thursday, 4 November 2010 17:37 (eleven years ago) link

whiney has been suggest banned within the past year and people didn't get that pissed; this is strictly about mod action, like it always is.

call all destroyer, Thursday, 4 November 2010 17:37 (eleven years ago) link

this ilx tea party shit is lol

omar little, Thursday, 4 November 2010 17:38 (eleven years ago) link

yeah i agree with cad

wakafledia (k3vin k.), Thursday, 4 November 2010 17:38 (eleven years ago) link

in hindsight, the *best* way to handle whiney in that particular thread would have been to check how many sb's he had and let it drop--but hey that didn't happen and here we are.

call all destroyer, Thursday, 4 November 2010 17:39 (eleven 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.