towforce wrote: ↑Mon Dec 09, 2024 10:52 am
An issue of concern about the new moderation structure which the FG might like to comment on.
To make it clear that is is a scenario completely unrelated to anyone, or any events, here, imagine a forum called "Cupcakes": they have a founders group (FG), and a single moderator, who is elected.
Now suppose that one of the Cupcakes FG is a bit neurotic, and hence tends to overreact to things. The other members of the Cupcakes FG tolerate him, and are obliged to defend him, even when he's obviously wrong, for the sake of maintaining the appearance of team unity.
The members of Cupcakes vote for a wholesome and intelligent moderator who is rock-solid reliable in his moderation, and always 100% impartial in handling moderation complaints. The future of the Cupcakes forum looks good! Then, however, the neurotic founding member loses his cool and writes some posts that are in breach of the Cupcakes forum charter: members make complaints about these posts. The high quality moderator takes the appropriate action.
1. The Cupcakes FG still wishes to be seen as a strong, unified team, so at this point they undermine the high quality moderator.
1a. The high quality moderator is intelligent, and will realise that this is a serious risk, and will therefore not stand in the first place.
2. When I was a moderator, I would recuse myself from moderation complaints about my own posts. A single moderator will be unable to do this.
Having a single moderator is a bad idea anyway. It would be bad form for a moderator to moderate discussions he takes part in. In so far these discussions are not about moderation issues.
A single neurotic FG member should be overruled by the other two; that is why there are three. FG members should not have a special status in discussions unrelated to running the forum, and should be subject to moderation like anyone else. This doesn't mean moderators should be all powerful; they should enforce the charter and their announced moderation policy on which they were elected; overstepping their mandate should lead to their removel.
Graham Banks wrote: ↑Mon Dec 09, 2024 12:25 am
No. I meant that it seems that of those eligible to stand, you're going to accept only those you deem acceptable.
Some. like myself, have already been told that perhaps we shouldn't bother applying.
Who told you that?
"Yesterday you were complaining mountains molehills, today you do more mountain, whilst advocating something so clearly against the EU law that we’ld possibly get fined for it. If you can’t make sense of the arguments in this thread you probably should not be commenting and probably also disqualify yourself from mod status on grounds of advocating unlawfulness when should know better." viewtopic.php?p=971798#p971798
“Probably also disqualify yourself ….” Is a call for self-critical awareness (after you advocated breaking or failing to understand EU law, law eloquently explained by Ras some weeks ago.
To be clear, you’re on the moderator candidate list and, like the hundred or so listed others can stand.
To be clear on EU law, I think the election is okay on that front after various procedure changes we made, but possibly Ras can offer his opinion again.
To be clear on role of the FG, if any moderator was to announce an intent to breach EU law, or actually breach it, the FG would have no choice other than to defend the talkchess forum by dismissing the moderator and correcting the breach.
Viren/mr peanut wrote
"This post initially called us "psychopathic kiddies "
wasn't specifically referring to you, but with the word 'us' you apparently
like to include yourself.
(but i admit my latest post may have been a bit impulsive/less serious, being a bit
fedup by the recent chaos regarding new mod elections; maybe i should have referred
to some specific insults i endured some months ago, but then the psycho word had
been put forward later by chrisw, so i simply used it again, in general terms
(had not used it before, you know); for the rest i'm also simply a human
being, you know (and not claiming i would be a perfect moderator).
and viren wrote:
"dementia kicking in"
this would be reason for a ban again, one month or so i suggest
(note that i usually don't put people in boxes (prejudice or thinking of a stereotype), it's
mostly their behavior i -sometimes- notice (and sometimes react to); young nerds should be
able still to learn some things (in life); from older men you could expect they already
learned (more) from experience (don't underestimate such oldies, i would suggest)
Last edited by jefk on Mon Dec 09, 2024 1:25 pm, edited 4 times in total.
wasn't unfounded, some time ago he questioned someone's mental sanity, thus a
personal insult and subsequently got banned (for a short period); simple as that.
(such insults shouldn't even be tolerated on discord but that's another matter)
even an AI could recognize such insults (and your language here
hasn't always been so civilized as well, i happen to remember)
Last edited by jefk on Mon Dec 09, 2024 1:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
towforce wrote: ↑Mon Dec 09, 2024 10:52 am
An issue of concern about the new moderation structure which the FG might like to comment on.
To make it clear that is is a scenario completely unrelated to anyone, or any events, here, imagine a forum called "Cupcakes": they have a founders group (FG), and a single moderator, who is elected.
Now suppose that one of the Cupcakes FG is a bit neurotic, and hence tends to overreact to things. The other members of the Cupcakes FG tolerate him, and are obliged to defend him, even when he's obviously wrong, for the sake of maintaining the appearance of team unity.
The members of Cupcakes vote for a wholesome and intelligent moderator who is rock-solid reliable in his moderation, and always 100% impartial in handling moderation complaints. The future of the Cupcakes forum looks good! Then, however, the neurotic founding member loses his cool and writes some posts that are in breach of the Cupcakes forum charter: members make complaints about these posts. The high quality moderator takes the appropriate action.
1. The Cupcakes FG still wishes to be seen as a strong, unified team, so at this point they undermine the high quality moderator.
1a. The high quality moderator is intelligent, and will realise that this is a serious risk, and will therefore not stand in the first place.
2. When I was a moderator, I would recuse myself from moderation complaints about my own posts. A single moderator will be unable to do this.
Having a single moderator is a bad idea anyway. It would be bad form for a moderator to moderate discussions he takes part in. In so far these discussions are not about moderation issues.
A single neurotic FG member should be overruled by the other two; that is why there are three. FG members should not have a special status in discussions unrelated to running the forum, and should be subject to moderation like anyone else. This doesn't mean moderators should be all powerful; they should enforce the charter and their announced moderation policy on which they were elected; overstepping their mandate should lead to their removel.
These are my personal opinions.
Likewise, personal opinions:
Like it or not the FG (or forum owners in the past) are involved in running the forum and consequently in moderation and/or moderation policy. At the time of the shop the owners wished to deny ownership (Matt and Sam Hull, admin and moderators were actually shop employees/stakeholders) so they pretended the owners had zilch to do with the forum when they actually actively controlled it. The situation now is more transparent and the FG is honest about its position.
Three FG plus three mods is too top heavy, potentially bureaucratic and I suspect liable to splitting (group too large).
Having one moderator with FG backup if needed (conflict of interest, time off etc) seems a good balance.
It would probably be best if FG stayed out of day to day moderation, but there’s a disruptive element here that seems determined to mire the place, moderators and FG in interminable political conflict.
it (the number of) three (moderators) can give problems, then i would suggest two
(instead of only one).
hgm wants to quite as moderator, chris w maybe later as well.
any volunteer (from the candidates list) to take over (from hgm ?)
then we can start voting (i'm not going to PM Ed or Chris about
a preferred candidate if such a person is not a volunteer).
For the rest i (besides possibly one of the new volunteers) would simply vote
for one of the *current* moderators not being hgm (but not telling you here
which one that would be); also for reasons of stability/continuity
(of eg decent moderation policies).
Insult? The question is whether or not it violates any rules, which it did not.
Part of being a moderator is this little thing called "nuance". Without it, we would simply scrap all moderators and use our chat bot friends. A good moderator does not view all as black and white, and can apply nuance. An authoritarian crackpot sees nuance, and disregards it as needed in order to exact their own political motives.
Last edited by AndrewGrant on Mon Dec 09, 2024 3:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
jefk wrote: ↑Mon Dec 09, 2024 1:03 pm
Viren/mr peanut wrote
"This post initially called us "psychopathic kiddies "
wasn't specifically referring to you, but with the word 'us' you apparently
like to include yourself.
(but i admit my latest post may have been a bit impulsive/less serious, being a bit
fedup by the recent chaos regarding new mod elections; maybe i should have referred
to some specific insults i endured some months ago, but then the psycho word had
been put forward later by chrisw, so i simply used it again, in general terms
(had not used it before, you know); for the rest i'm also simply a human
being, you know (and not claiming i would be a perfect moderator).
and viren wrote:
"dementia kicking in"
this would be reason for a ban again, one month or so i suggest
(note that i usually don't put people in boxes (prejudice or thinking of a stereotype), it's
mostly their behavior i -sometimes- notice (and sometimes react to); young nerds should be
able still to learn some things (in life); from older men you could expect they already
learned (more) from experience (don't underestimate such oldies, i would suggest)
So to summarize, you are allowed to make characterizations about the mental health of users, but Viren is not?
AG
"you are allowed to make characterizations about the mental health of users, but Viren is not?"
i'm allowed to make characterizations ? that are your -insinuating- words. I was
talking -again in less serious posting- in general terms not referring to anyone;
but you feel adressed, for some particular reason, then maybe you should think
about it (and your past behavior here) rather than starting to complain here.
Viren Peanut is not a real name btw (is it shawn or so? and basically nobody
should make psychological characterizations of others here, especially if you don't
know them or are not a moderator. Or don't know anything about psychology.
That doesn't mean that if' i'm insulted (or worse mobbed by some piranhas), i may
occasionally respond in an appropriate ways eg using words as eg. 'youth gang' (as i did
some months ago); it's up to the moderators then to correct me, not to you, besides
this all off topic, and i suggest you revert to some more constructive postings, instead
of the usual negative stuff. In addition, if some posters, youngsters or otherwise
who were banned cannot understand why this happened, then indeed imo we (or a
the least the moderator) might question some aspects of their personality. You
were (not yet) part of my ignore/foe list, but now (very) close to join that gang.
PS you also wrote (about insults)
"The question is whether or not it violates any rules, which it did not."
making insults is violating the charter, and not only that;
it's part of a well established netiquette and generally known moderation
rules on the internet that personal attacks and insults are not tolerated.
difficult to understand huh (for a young engine programmer). It's also
stated in this FG charter that you shouldn't question moderation decisions
(or policies); something with which you apparently have difficulties with.
People like you are (part of a) reason why i don't volunteer here for moderator
(something with which i have some experience some years ago, believe it or not);
if this would be a civilized academic forum about eg. theoretical physics with
mostly decent participants say Phd level i would be honored to fulfill such a task;
but not here (hint, i wouldn't use temporary bans; one insult or personal attack
to someone else and you -or a similar person- would be out; forever).
Insult? The question is whether or not it violates any rules, which it did not.
Part of being a moderator is this little thing called "nuance". Without it, we would simply scrap all moderators and use our chat bot friends. A good moderator does not view all as black and white, and can apply nuance. An authoritarian crackpot sees nuance, and disregards it as needed in order to exact their own political motives.
Well, point taken, you don't consider posting insults against the rules. But unfortunately for you it is. Which makes you utterly unsuitable for being a moderator on this forum.
