Intransparent moderation

[Boidhre]

Moderation is not affected by legal considerations. The desire for privacy of moderation is. We are not going to commit libel by placing all of a member's alleged transgressions on a public forum. Those who want to see heads on pikes or sinners in stockades should go re-read Jordus' post.

Libel? Have there been some cases on US forums where someone has brought a case against being banned or something?

[xed_over]

One of you is lying. Why would you lie about such a thing?

or they just simply have misunderstood each other's position.

no reason to jump to such extreme conclusions and offensive accusations.

[xed_over]

We are not going to commit libel by placing all of a member's alleged transgressions on a public forum.

Also no need to take such extreme positions. Surely there can be a middle ground here to provide both privacy and transparency.

[Joaz Banbeck]

... Surely there can be a middle ground here to provide both privacy and transparency.

I agree completely. I'm working on it right now. Expect an announcement in the next day or so.

[speedchase]

So, which is it? Does he command you like pawns or not? One of you is lying. Why would you lie about such a thing? This is why there needs to be transparency - information is not given straight laced even when no user is involved.

I disagree. Both posts contain the exact same information, just spun oppositely. They both agree that Jordus doesn't hold influence over day to day events, but should the situation require it he holds the ultimate authority. Jordus is downplaying his authority, but he does say that he breaks ties between admins should the situation require it. Joaz may be slightly exaggerating Jordus's authority, but he does say that Jordus abstains from daily influence. These seem like the same facts too me.

Then there is Robert's thread explosion, because he was given some user dependent rule that nobody knew about. It was very confusing, and Robert had to explain it on Sensei's Library. All of this confusion could have been avoided if people knew what was going on.

yeah, that was weird.

[hyperpape]

Except Joaz has said on sensei's that Robert misinterpreted a suggestion as a command. And elsewhere (rec.games.go?) , I believe that Robert has said he intended to view all admin communications as orders, since he thinks he missed a prior warning by doing the opposite.

[Mef]

First of all, removing the ability of someone to post on an internet bulletin board and the act of severing a head from a human body and placing it on top of a wooden post in the ground are not really comparable.

This misses the reference. In this case "head on a pike" isn't referring to the actual severing of the head, it refers to the fact that, in addition to your punishment (being killed), your face is put on display for all to see and know of the fact that you were punished (the head of your dead body is placed atop a pike). People have bad days, people post drunk, people have younger siblings who like to cause trouble when they see you are still logged in to a forum, hell, sometimes people just make mistakes. When we have a culture that is quick to vilify, slow to exonerate, and sometimes downright opposed to admitting their initial impressions of a person may have been wrong, having a police blotter of sorts that keeps all your biggest sins in one public place may not be the best solution. Also there's always the potential of forum trolls using it like a scoreboard.

Just my 2 cents.

[Javaness2]

If people really don't trust the mods, I'd prefer we had annual elections to get rid of them. For the reasons that Mef gives, I don't agree with a public trial, even in a limited form.

Personally, I don't think any of them are crazed control freaks engaging in bullying, etc

[Joaz Banbeck]

Moderation is not affected by legal considerations. The desire for privacy of moderation is. We are not going to commit libel by placing all of a member's alleged transgressions on a public forum. Those who want to see heads on pikes or sinners in stockades should go re-read Jordus' post.

Libel? Have there been some cases on US forums where someone has brought a case against being banned or something?

No, under US law, TTBOMK, nobody has been successfully sued for being banned from a private forum. But people can be sued for something that they say on a private forum if it is defamatory.

The difference, of course, is how public the issue is. Banning a user is a private act. An admin could make a public record of the act, and ste his reasons. That would be a public act.

[xed_over]

The difference, of course, is how public the issue is. Banning a user is a private act. An admin could make a public record of the act, and state his reasons. That would be a public act.

But with few exceptions, all user actions are already public, so if reasons for banning are related to those same already public actions, then nothing new is being revealed by public banning, otherwise if handled privately, it causes even more confusion.

[Joaz Banbeck]

...
But with few exceptions, all user actions are already public, so if reasons for banning are related to those same already public actions, then nothing new is being revealed by public banning...

That is not really true.

When a non-troublesome user like yourself posts, it is all public.

But when a user is close to being banned, many of their actions are private. Often, when there is a post that is blatantly in violation of the TOS, it gets edited, so the content is private. Also, when on the verge of banning, the member has had several conversations with admins. Those communications are also private.

Another way of stating this is: when things get ugly, we try to be discrete.

[Boidhre]

Moderation is not affected by legal considerations. The desire for privacy of moderation is. We are not going to commit libel by placing all of a member's alleged transgressions on a public forum. Those who want to see heads on pikes or sinners in stockades should go re-read Jordus' post.

Libel? Have there been some cases on US forums where someone has brought a case against being banned or something?

No, under US law, TTBOMK, nobody has been successfully sued for being banned from a private forum. But people can be sued for something that they say on a private forum if it is defamatory.

The difference, of course, is how public the issue is. Banning a user is a private act. An admin could make a public record of the act, and ste his reasons. That would be a public act.

Irish cases have been similar I believe, no suits over banning but plenty of suits from businesses especially about defamation making dealing with potential libellous posts a common task for moderators. I honestly have a hard time believing that a (justified) banning could be construed as libel but I don't know US law or case history.

[badukJr]

So, which is it? Does he command you like pawns or not? One of you is lying. Why would you lie about such a thing? This is why there needs to be transparency - information is not given straight laced even when no user is involved.

I disagree. Both posts contain the exact same information, just spun oppositely. They both agree that Jordus doesn't hold influence over day to day events, but should the situation require it he holds the ultimate authority. Jordus is downplaying his authority, but he does say that he breaks ties between admins should the situation require it. Joaz may be slightly exaggerating Jordus's authority, but he does say that Jordus abstains from daily influence. These seem like the same facts too me.

Why are the mods spinning things at all? Just say what the actual rule is: Jordus breaks deadlocks when mods disagree with each other. We are just go players, no need for political subterfuge or spin. Having this cloak and dagger environment where people are taken away in the night creates an unsettled community.

First of all, removing the ability of someone to post on an internet bulletin board and the act of severing a head from a human body and placing it on top of a wooden post in the ground are not really comparable.

This misses the reference. In this case "head on a pike" isn't referring to the actual severing of the head, it refers to the fact that, in addition to your punishment (being killed), your face is put on display for all to see and know of the fact that you were punished (the head of your dead body is placed atop a pike). People have bad days, people post drunk, people have younger siblings who like to cause trouble when they see you are still logged in to a forum, hell, sometimes people just make mistakes. When we have a culture that is quick to vilify, slow to exonerate, and sometimes downright opposed to admitting their initial impressions of a person may have been wrong, having a police blotter of sorts that keeps all your biggest sins in one public place may not be the best solution. Also there's always the potential of forum trolls using it like a scoreboard.

Just my 2 cents.

I don't want people connected to their bannings so I can point and laugh, or judge them. Its more of wanting the rules to be set by example and having accountability for the mods. Yes, now people can not be shamed, but also mods can ban people for anything and nobody would know about it. More active members would probably complain elsewhere, but what about someone who just discovered this place and isn't really involved in the internet community as a whole? Did they just lose interest and stop posting, or maybe they got banned? It is impossible to know.
Alternatively, no record of moderation can make it look like the mods are doing absolutely nothing and letting the place free run. This can frustrate members who feel like the place is out of control. I believe several people have stopped posting here just because of that perception.

I really really really don't think the average poster here is interested in vilifying other people based on their moderation-interaction record, they just want a sane place to talk about go. It feels like every time someone disagrees with another's opinion, one party starts screaming about personal attacks trying to invoke the TOS to somehow win the argument. This stuff happens because nobody knows how the rules are enforced.

As an aside, when people are faced with a lack of information they assume the worst. A teenage boy calls a girl and leaves a voicemail, if she doesn't call back within an hour he thinks she hates him. A son driving to his mother's house is a half an hour late, mom thinks that he got into a car accident somewhere on the way. A weak go player has little confidence and knowledge, thinking his move is terrible when it may be fine.
It is hard for members and mods to see eye to eye on this issue, because the mods have all the information. They don't understand what its like to post here without access to the mod forum.

[speedchase]

Why are the mods spinning things at all? Just say what the actual rule is: Jordus breaks deadlocks when mods disagree with each other. We are just go players, no need for political subterfuge or spin. Having this cloak and dagger environment where people are taken away in the night creates an unsettled community.

It's not a question of intentional spin, but a questions of perception (spin may have been the wrong word). From Jordus's perception he rarely comes on L19, and when he does it is only because he is needed. From Joaz's perception whenever Jordus shows up, he does it to solve a conflict, which at its core involves flexing authority. I don't think either of these perceptions are wrong, or even untruthful.
To be fair, I have no specific knowledge that the above is true, and that they aren't just politicking. My explanation seems the most reasonable to me, and why not give them the benefit of the doubt?

[jts]

As an aside, when people are faced with a lack of information they assume the worst. A teenage boy calls a girl and leaves a voicemail, if she doesn't call back within an hour he thinks she hates him. A son driving to his mother's house is a half an hour late, mom thinks that he got into a car accident somewhere on the way.

If you replaced "people" with "very silly people", both the claim and the examples would be apposite.