TOMBOT and john justin should not be mods

you don't actually have to watch the one-sided dance over and over if you don't want to

i'd be a lot more worried if it wasn't the same people getting banned every time and the same people complaining every time. that suggests a fundamental disagreement in how ILXors (and moderators) should be allowed to behave but not something that can ever really be resolved (so everyone just goes round in circles every few weeks). the number of mods and the number of banned/complainers seems roughly the same and it makes ILX seem an incredibly tiny place as opposed to somewhere you could get a response as big as to a poll like the almost complete lack of moderation is one of ilxs real strengths (agree/disagree?)

do you still have all 82 of those email accounts?

oh ye have little faith

mothers against drunk modders sez don't mod drunk

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y176/edwardiii/madd-ad.jpg

can we just get to the stage where we agree to track the 53 that voted yes and ban them as a subtle warning?

Yes, your poll was very big, now stop waving it around like that.

Is the idea that this isn't a problem that deserves to be discussed until or unless more than half of all the hundreds of people who look at different parts of this board for different amounts of time care about it? If only one person has to complain about a meta post for there to be a delete or ban, why do we need to reach some magical quota number of complaints to address a persistent issue regarding those deletions and bans?

kind of curious what the rationale behind no admin log is? there was one in old ilx and I don't recall it ever causing a problem. I guess I can understand keith's rationale for not letting the general public see who took the action, but also don't like the general mysterioso secrecy having no admin log entails. it's like an insurance policy against mods getting crazy.

I also don't like the idea of banning people "because they're dicks". unless someone's specifically and clearly broken a published ilx rule then let them be. but we're in the bizarro world now when general site modding is in question and jw lobbies to have lj unbanned from noize borad.

make that "having an admin log is like an insurance policy against mods getting crazy"

xpost to some dude: partly because of the inherent hierarchy re mods and non-mods. partly because different boards have, for better or worse, established different cultures so consistency is never going to happen (see banning on noise board being seen as just a bit of fun, which would never done elsewhere). what's the alternative? everybody's requests are granted meaning constant loop?

Edward there is a whole thread about this where all the arguments are put forward. Admin log has been developed and will be rolled out shortly, as Keith said upthread.

maybe we could have a list of posters that will be banned for the smallest provocation of any sort, and a list of posters of whom the smallest provocation of any sort will result in a ban.

that would clear things up much more quickly than going over what is/isn't "meta", and would, let's face it, be a hell of a lot more accurate in any case.

^^ I like this idea. Make the "inherent heirarchy" into a flowchart we can all look at and understand.

yeah lets have a "permanent probation" list and a "do not touch" list

let's use "quotemarks" more

darraghmac otm (first time for everything)

"quotation marks" are a "useful" way to "set off" "titles" of things like "lists" and not always "indicative" of "sarcasm" you "limey"

xpost- steady on, that's edging on meta snark territory.

max is so "feisty"

I try and moderate fairly as much as possible and I certainly don't victimise people based on my personal opinions of them but I'm not going to give a Nude Spock alias the same benefit of the doubt as, say, some perfectly innocuous dude who posts on sports threads. Some people are more likely to be regarded with suspicion by mods than others, usually as a direct result of their own behaviour.

Nude Spock could post about snooker for weeks without bothering anyone, but as soon as someone found out who he was, he would be banned because mods are not prepared to put up with him any more and are not willing to treat him like any old poster. That's one extreme, but some people are closer to that extreme than others. Dom is one of them. It's not like "ooh this poster is being victimised when others are getting off with impunity". We've actually been pretty fucking lenient with Dom all things considered and that's because when he's not being a dick he makes a strong contribution and starts a lot of decent threads. I don't ever want to have to ban him on a permanent basis, I just want him to stop being such a creep.

Also the passive-aggressive stuff here is really annoying. I'm trying to answer honestly and fairly here so please stop.

(Disclaimer, not seen the 77 thread in question, I'm speaking in general terms here)

some perfectly innocuous dude

going on the future username list

matt i commend u as i always have for actually responding with paragraphs in a reasonable tone instead of one-line condescending snark

Yeah, me too. I will say, though, that Dom's mischief is generally kind of impish and benign, even when it has a target that's someone else on the board. It's usually the response to his antics that makes it all seem like some kind of crazy blood feud.

Mac: But our shenanigans are cheeky and fun
Thorny: And his shenanigans are cruel and tragic

I'm not saying Tombot's modding has been unfair, but I do agree with the people who say that the way he posts about his modding, which makes it look like he gets personal kicks from it, isn't good behaviour. It makes it look like his modding decisions have been made for personal reasons even if that's not true. I don't think that's a good behaviour from a moderator, because it makes his actions seem suspect, and if you can't know the exact reasons behind them except for some aggressive posts on random threads, can you really blame folks for thinking he's not a fair mod? That's why I too think that a more "objective" admin log, which would just state "person X temp-banned for reason Y", would make moderation feel more fair.

I don't think admin log is a good idea anyway; my opinion is that it will create more of the above nonsense rather than less; we'll see, I guess.

What are you basing this assumption on? Like Edward said, we used to have have an admin log in old ILX for years, and I can't remember it ever causing any problems.

Worth noting that the people that are being given grief above are in favour of having admin log. It's mainly me, and to a lesser extent some others who don't want it.

As far as I know I've never been banned or moderated for any reason, but I am in favour of the admin log and, in general, cool-headed behaviour from the mods, even when they know they're right.

Also the passive-aggressive stuff here is really annoying. I'm trying to answer honestly and fairly here so please stop.

sorry if anything i've posted came off like that matt. my post was serious, but i don't think anything said here has been in reference to your modding.

i also agree/sympathise with just about everything you've said wrt the frustation of modding, but posting here without mod powers can be a pretty frustrating experience too.

(Disclaimer, not seen the 77 thread in question, I'm speaking in general terms here)

-- Matt DC, 28 August 2008 13:58 (6 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

i don't usually have any problem with tombot's modding either, but this was some next level bullsh1t, and maybe you should have a read before excusing it with the normal (probably understandable) mod replies.

Just to be clear, this doesn't mean I'm against banning people for being creeps, just that those decisions should appear to be made on objective basis.

(x-post)

we used to have have an admin log in old ILX for years, and I can't remember it ever causing any problems

jesus h christ. you're saying that because we had an admin log nobody ever started complaint threads about people they liked getting banned?

admin log will make zero difference to the frequency of such threads and ban decisions (but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be a neat thing to have).

Well yeah, but I don't think the problems have really decreased after losing the admin log, and certain problems which the admin log could solve (the question of the objectivity/transparency of the mods) seem to have increased.

Having now seen the thread in question there's no doubt in my mind that Dom made that pop at Tom knowing full well it would result in a ban and a lengthy meta clusterfuck, which presumably he is watching now with a large bag of popcorn. Well done all concerned.

But yeah, that was badly worded, what I meant is that I can't recall the presence of the admin log causing any more problems than its absence has done now.

(x-post)

Forget the admin log, let's just do up the mod/non-mod heirarchy in a D&D style and let Tom be the level 8 dungeon master already.

Having now seen the thread in question there's no doubt in my mind that Dom made that pop at Tom knowing full well it would result in a ban and a lengthy meta clusterfuck, which presumably he is watching now with a large bag of popcorn. Well done all concerned.

i think we can all agree that tom, the person who started that thread, is entirely blameless in this whole debacle. he's really the victim, fi you think about it. we should do a whip round.

http://www.didntyouhear.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/vanilla_ice-to_the_extreme_album_cover.jpg

im often lold by toms modding - its charismatic absurd quality is in keeping w/the best aspects of the bord - problem is hes targeting others who embody those qualities too

in life its important to know who yr natural allies are

if chaki had the balls to light himself on fire he'd have done it years ago

-- El Tomboto, 27 August 2008 18:50 (Yesterday) Bookmark Link

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

gershy would light somebody else on fire, and then say it wasn't him

-- El Tomboto, 27 August 2008 18:50 (Yesterday) Bookmark Link

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

heave would only light himself on fire if you told him there was money in it

-- El Tomboto, 27 August 2008 18:50 (Yesterday) Bookmark Link

this isn't bannable meta coming out of dom's mouth? interesting.

It's gonna be big fun when Tom jumps back into the thread and reads us all the same "This is America, if you don't like it GO TO RUSSIA, COMMIE" riot act as usual, ain't it? We'll go right back to square one, he'll keep pulling the same stunts, and we'll bide our time til the next clusterfuck.

have we really gotten to the point where that sort of talk is banable? like we cant discuss the bord and posters on it? did this happen when i was gone?

xp

who are u

Or I can just stop modding except to fulfill specific requests. Ned's sitewide now, and he doesn't have to worry about 77.

That would be cool.

Darragh that wouldn't even be approaching bannable meta no matter who it was.

So from now on, whenever you've been banned, just assume it wasn't me. Got that Dom?

how many people *honestly* don't like tom's modding? like five? six, maybe? i think he mods with a pretty good sense of humor. for all the shit he gets flung at him about his personal life, i think he handles it all pretty well.

modding only in response to requests would be great for all the mods - the motherly tendency to guide the bord is futile anyway - gotta let it do its thing maaaaan

fwiw, I thought Pashmina was pretty clear on the http://www.ilxor.com/ILX/ThreadSelectedControllerServlet?action=showall&boardid=40&threadid=58899 thread a few months ago about zero tolerance regarding "Meta snidiness behind people's backs on one of the smaller boards or on board 77" and discussing "people who don't even post here anymore." Maybe that policy has changed already, though, I dunno. (xpost to Matt)

lol there is no policy this place is a total clusterfuck-shitstorm and thats how come we luv it so

be the river not the rock

Some dude, did you deliberately overlook "Ad hominem snide at any other poster about IRL things that are not under discussion on that thread"?