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

[djchameleon]

Originally Posted by Il Duce

and to clear things up, I was only joking when I complained about pedo in the "Banned" thread

seems like everybody was doing it, so why shouldn't I?

you aren't allowed to joke unless you place a clear disclaimer that you are joking


DISCLAIMER: THIS IS A JOKE.

[Guybrush]

I took some time out of my day to write a proper post and now it seems to be drowning in off-topic banter. MB is not a chatroom, yet this seems to happen more and more these days. Can we try and keep this thread on topic and not digress too much?

[The Virgin]

Originally Posted by tore

I took some time out of my day to write a proper post and now it seems to be drowning in off-topic banter. MB is not a chatroom, yet this seems to happen more and more these days. Can we try and keep this thread on topic and not digress too much?

oh, sure thing. sorry.
apologies.

[Howard the Duck]

Originally Posted by tore

I took some time out of my day to write a proper post and now it seems to be drowning in off-topic banter. MB is not a chatroom, yet this seems to happen more and more these days. Can we try and keep this thread on topic and not digress too much?

sure - mods, feel free to delete my posts

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

Did you? Haha, when was that? I hadn't even noticed.

i said "since you were elected, a lot of my innocent posts hve disappeared"

then you had infracted me, I insinuated that you were keeping Thee Virgin as a foil to get me banned

then I insinuated that you were a racist and a xenophobe

[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.

[Neapolitan]

Originally Posted by Freebase Dali

21. Black & white moderation will lead to an unhappy community afraid of expressing themselves.
- "Black & white" moderation means: Moderating strictly to the set rules, regardless of any considerations whatsoever, and forsaking independent judgment of situations and gray areas. This ties into several of the options.

I think what is more important than the mod team to whip the forum into shape with Draconian measures is to maintain the site's reputation... There isn't a forum out there on the internet that doesn't have rules to safe-guard itself from disruptive members. I have no complaints about the current mod team, I like Conan, Pedestrian, Vanilla, FB, Janszoon, (I mention them since I more familiar with them, the others I am no so well acquainted with - but I'm cool with them.)

There are really no hard & fast rules to cover all situations. Should Mods use their own discretion? In most cases I would say yes, I'm all for members trusting the Moderators with the job they do. But what happens if a Mod has a personal axe to grind with a particular member? Or what happens if a member gets railroaded because he or she doesn't fit into the clique? These are situations where both sides have to be weighed, to see what side is not as bad as they are made out to be. It's hard enough for one person to be objective let alone a whole group - and there should be more understanding coming from the members once the mod team makes a decision. I think when it comes to the rules it does not to have it so black & white but to have some fail-safe where it can protect a member from unfair treatment, and that goes for both sides of the dispute (which is basically Moderator discretion.)

[Freebase Dali]

Firstly, thank you all for the discussions!

Secondly, I just want to point out that in the option referring to "history", I meant that in terms of a members track-record for constantly being disruptive and insulting, versus a member's track record of being squeaky-clean but maybe making a mistake and immediately apologizing for it.

I don't believe we should moderate every single occurrence. I believe we should moderate consistent behavior that negatively impacts the forums.

Third, in reply to you, Neapolitan, there are measures in place to protect members from being targeted unfairly by mods. It's the rest of the mods. We're often challenging eachother's decisions in the interest of fairness, which is not something any regular member sees, as it's done in the mod forum where it's appropriate to do that. I think the general assumption is that the mods are all watching eachother's backs like they're some sort of gang, but the fact of the matter is we're accountable to each other as a team. Believe me, if a mod goes rogue and gets out of control, that mod gets dealt with. Boo boo is a shining example of that. So yes, there is a fail-safe.

[richie1]

First, let me say that I'm a newbie. That being said, perhaps I can give a different view than those that have been posted previously.

Needless to say, I haven't been around here long enough to know what the old mods were like compared to the new. I haven't really been around long enough to form opinions on the current mods. That being said, this has been my experience so far....

I've seen ALOT of talk about getting banned, abuse of power, etc... I've even seen several signatures and quotes making reference to mods/rules.

My webpage in my signature was removed for "advertising". It is a music related site that I am just putting together. It does not have ads. It does not earn money. Not sure how it differs from others but, whatever.

The people on these boards seem really cool and, it's hard for me to imagine it getting out of hand to the point of people needing to be banned, but I only came on board earlier this month so, what do I know?

[Neapolitan]

Originally Posted by Freebase Dali

Third, in reply to you, Neapolitan, there are measures in place to protect members from being targeted unfairly by mods. It's the rest of the mods. We're often challenging eachother's decisions in the interest of fairness, which is not something any regular member sees, as it's done in the mod forum where it's appropriate to do that. I think the general assumption is that the mods are all watching eachother's backs like they're some sort of gang, but the fact of the matter is we're accountable to each other as a team. Believe me, if a mod goes rogue and gets out of control, that mod gets dealt with. Boo boo is a shining example of that. So yes, there is a fail-safe.

OK that's reassuring.

My other issue is vigilantism. I can understand if a member is disruptive and disciplinary actions need to be taken. But it shouldn't come from one member calling for another member to be banned - in most cases when complaining about another member that dialogue should be member-mod about a trouble-some member. I don't like when it's out in the open (there was a recent event but I won't mention the two people involved) and one member is calling out for another member to be banned - I'm sure other members don't want to see petty arguments clutter the board either.

I think a regular member see something unacceptable he or she should either report it or ignore it, not to think they have chance for trolling a troll. To quote Clinton "It takes a clown to stop a clown."