Community Feedback Poll [read clarifications in OP before voting!]

[GuitarBizarre]

Originally Posted by RVCA

No personal judgement in moderating, strict adherence to rules please

Post count and history mean nothing

Moderators must be able to justify all of their moderating decisions

and most importantly, community majority opinion means nothing. Mods are here to protect the minority and objectively enforce rules, no matter who is breaking them.

If history means nothing and strict adherence to the rules is everything, then doesn't that mean someone could insult someone, recieve a temp ban, return off that temp ban, insult the same person again, and continue the pattern indefinitely providing none of the insults were severe enough to warrant a permaban in and of themselves?

And, on the same token, doesn't that mean that if a respected member had a bad day, got drunk and said a few things they would later regret, that member could be permabanned regardless of the positive contribution they otherwise make to the community at all other times?

Moderators being able to justify their actions - No problems here. I don't think we currently even HAVE a problem with this.

Community Majority Opinion means nothing - Sorry, not with you on this one. The amount of time devoted to trying to please the community should be limited to avoid moderators getting distracted by the more...insistent...complainers, and often I think there are people who bitch about modding decisions for the sake of bitching about mod decisions, but the potential exists for genuine errors to be brought up by the community and resolved and that should be given weight.

[Necromancer]

Originally Posted by GuitarBizarre

If history means nothing and strict adherence to the rules is everything, then doesn't that mean someone could insult someone, recieve a temp ban, return off that temp ban, insult the same person again, and continue the pattern indefinitely providing none of the insults were severe enough to warrant a permaban in and of themselves?

And, on the same token, doesn't that mean that if a respected member had a bad day, got drunk and said a few things they would later regret, that member could be permabanned regardless of the positive contribution they otherwise make to the community at all other times?

Moderators being able to justify their actions - No problems here. I don't think we currently even HAVE a problem with this.

Community Majority Opinion means nothing - Sorry, not with you on this one. The amount of time devoted to trying to please the community should be limited to avoid moderators getting distracted by the more...insistent...complainers, and often I think there are people who bitch about modding decisions for the sake of bitching about mod decisions, but the potential exists for genuine errors to be brought up by the community and resolved and that should be given weight.

You're just "bucking" for a Mod position yourself GB. (I'm just teasing, no offense meant)

[GuitarBizarre]

Originally Posted by Necromancer

You're just "bucking" for a Mod position yourself GB. (I'm just teasing, no offense meant)

I keep getting told its just a matter of time, as long as I keep doing them those 'favours'

[RVCA]

Originally Posted by Necromancer

You should be considered as one of the next potential moderators RVCA. Ive always thought that was the case not long after you became a member here at MB.

Oh, thank you! But I don't know if I could handle it

Originally Posted by GuitarBizarre

If history means nothing and strict adherence to the rules is everything, then doesn't that mean someone could insult someone, recieve a temp ban, return off that temp ban, insult the same person again, and continue the pattern indefinitely providing none of the insults were severe enough to warrant a permaban in and of themselves?

I meant "history means nothing" in the sense that someone who has been a member for 5 years should receive no more leniency than someone who has been a member for 5 days. To think that one would gain exception or preference simply because they have longevity on their side is the symbol of a fundamentally flawed system of law. Of course I didn't mean that someone could repeatedly break a rule while the mods disregard their past offenses, so perhaps I misunderstood the question.

And, on the same token, doesn't that mean that if a respected member had a bad day, got drunk and said a few things they would later regret, that member could be permabanned regardless of the positive contribution they otherwise make to the community at all other times?

Sorry, but even if David Bowie got drunk and murdered another person, I'd still want the same punishment for him as I would for some lowlife scumbag who has never contributed anything positive to society.

Moderators being able to justify their actions - No problems here. I don't think we currently even HAVE a problem with this.

Community Majority Opinion means nothing - Sorry, not with you on this one. The amount of time devoted to trying to please the community should be limited to avoid moderators getting distracted by the more...insistent...complainers, and often I think there are people who bitch about modding decisions for the sake of bitching about mod decisions, but the potential exists for genuine errors to be brought up by the community and resolved and that should be given weight.

That's perfectly fine, and I agree that mods should listen to to and consider the majority community opinion, but I absolutely disagree with the notion that the "majority opinion" determines what's right. If there's anything I've learned from American politics, it's that the judiciary system is designed not to uphold majority views, but to protect the minority (when they are in the right) from those majority views.

[GuitarBizarre]

Originally Posted by RVCA

I meant "history means nothing" in the sense that someone who has been a member for 5 years should receive no more leniency than someone who has been a member for 5 days. To think that one would gain exception or preference simply because they have longevity on their side is the symbol of a fundamentally flawed system of law. Of course I didn't mean that someone could repeatedly break a rule while the mods disregard their past offenses, so perhaps I misunderstood the question.

Can't say I agree, again. Sometimes an action is given new context by a persons prior history. An example would be in an IRC chat I frequent (Not the MB chat). I've always been one to speak my mind in this channel, but as time has gone on I've been able to do that more fully in the channel without being given grief for it, because the channel have become more in tune with my personality and I with theirs. Its now roughly at the point that I can let fly and scream blue murder in manners that would get a newbie banned in moments, because despite the actions being the same, the community understands the approach to the extent its given an amount of leeway. While this might say to you that undue preference is being given, I have seen no evidence that anyone is unhappy with this arrangement, and in some situations channel moderators and members alike have fully endorsed my stretching or outright breaking of the rules on the understanding that it doesn't occur on a frequent enough basis to be a significant problem, and also that when it does occur, I usually have the sense to break rules in a way that benefits the community, via either comedy, or providing a rallying cry behind which a channel can voice its opinion of trolls. Without me having the ability to break those rules, these trolls would never encounter significant resistance as insultin them or otherwise making them look foolish would be disallowed.


Sorry, but even if David Bowie got drunk and murdered another person, I'd still want the same punishment for him as I would for some lowlife scumbag who has never contributed anything positive to society.

Absolutely, but would you want a shoplifter stealing bread to feed his family, to face the same punishments as a man stealing bread to sell on at a profit, or simply for gluttonys sake? The crime is the exact same, the punishment, evidently less just on one party than the other, if the same punishment were meted to both offenders.



That's perfectly fine, and I agree that mods should listen to to and consider the majority community opinion, but I absolutely disagree with the notion that the "majority opinion" determines what's right. If there's anything I've learned from American politics, it's that the judiciary system is designed not to uphold majority views, but to protect the minority (when they are in the right) from those majority views.

The last part I fully agree with.

[Guybrush]

When I started moderating, my approach at first was black and white and I thought the same rules should apply for everyone. I wanted punishment for any rule breaking to be automatic, impersonal and without discrimination in regards to how long the offender had been here or how well liked he or she was. Basically, I thought if moderators were robots and people didn't get butthurt over infractions, then gaining infractions would be a natural forum consequence, one that you could plan for as getting an infraction really isn't that dangerous so it would still "allow" some rule breaking before members started getting banned.

Then I realized there's no way on MB people are not gonna take recieving infractions personal as it is now. They're used as warnings preceding a ban so people are scared and offended when they recieve them. My approach really wasn't working at all so I had to change the way I did things.

Instead of a moderator punishing people like a robot, I realized it would be better if moderators try to nurture the community instead. If you've been here a long time, that means you are part of the community and if you add positively to it, then I think that makes you a part that should be nurtured. As such, some members have earned some leniency on the moderators part while some, newcomers and those who affect our community in a generally negative way, do not deserve the same privilege. The goal is to make MusicBanter a pleasant and fun community to be a part of and to me, it's a bit like growing a bonzai tree. You have to remove some twigs here and there to make it beautiful (not that I often banned regular members).

The difference between my initial approach and the way I ended up moderating was the latter felt like it worked. For all mods to have the perspective that they're doing a service to a community they are doing their best to improve is an attitude that I think would benefit MB in all areas.


Something lately is causing a split between the mods and some of the members here. Some of the problem I'm sure is a lot of the moderators have a knee-jerk reaction which is very defensive when met with criticism or a wish that they change the way they do things. Why a defensive attitude? These people are the community you serve, so you should treat them with respect and listen. I also feel like moderators breaking the rules they are supposed to uphold can also widen the gap between mods and members as does using mod powers for gloating and terrorizing, like changing the content of a members posts. Because of their power and position as both rule enforces and role models, moderators have to tread more carefully than others, particularly when wielding that power. For example, if you give someone an infraction, in their message, you simply state why that happened and perhaps what could prevented it. You don't gloat or call the offender an idiot.

That's how I feel about it at least. I'm not sure I always lived up to those ideals when I modded, but I tried and I think all mods should.

[GuitarBizarre]

Originally Posted by tore

Lots of text.

Bonsai*

[Guybrush]

Originally Posted by GuitarBizarre

Bonsai*

I did it my way.

Originally Posted by tore

it's a bit like growing a bonzai tree. You have to remove some twigs here and there to make it beautiful

and i bet i'm the soon-to-be blossoming flower on that bonzai tree.
hoping to overshadow the unecessary twigs.

anyways, i pretty much agree with everything you said and RVCA.

this site, apart from music, should maintain a 'nurturing' atmosphere, free from insults and attacks.

[Howard the Duck]

Originally Posted by The Virgin

and i bet i'm the soon-to-be blossoming flower on that bonzai tree.
hoping to overshadow the unecessary twigs.

anyways, i pretty much agree with everything you said and RVCA.

this site, apart from music, should maintain a 'nurturing' atmosphere, free from insults and attacks.

and blatant provocation to incur insults and attacks