Life In 19x19

If this thread isn't going to die any time soon, can a mod please change it to opaque moderation? It's like a splinter in my eye.

Two quotes by Jordus.

1. The goal of this site is to be "by the community, for the community".

2. Yes I am prepared to give ownership to the community.

Alguien wrote:

Bantari wrote:I think it is generally a good idea to let the community have input into how a forum is run. Even if this input gets ignored for whatever reason.

I disagree.

Rules should be tried for a while and then set. Once they are set, It can be interesting to have a suggestion box, but that's all. A decision that follows the set rules can't be grounds of rethinking the rules.

Some rules pass the test of time, some do not.
Also - times change and so the rules might need to change.

Without any way from the user to have an input, the few overworked admins might not even notice... until people move to a new forum.

Alguien wrote:Essentially, I don't care about the decision and I'd just rather keep the forum as it is today, and was when we decided to stay in this forum instead of another.

The rules can't be reset every time a very vocal minority starts crying about freedom of speech (as in every other forum). I don't want to have to be involved in every angsty teenager river of tears just to protect a stable and well running forum.

Does what you say above only apply to the change suggestions you personally dislike, or to all change suggestions?

If you change the rules to something like moderators must monitor the forum 24/7, I would highly disagree with that no matter how many people voted yes for it.

tchan001 wrote:If you change the rules to something like moderators must monitor the forum 24/7, I would highly disagree with that no matter how many people voted yes for it.

More to the point, such a vote would be meaningless in the absence of moderators willing to do it. Voluntary organizations are always subject to "anarchist" vs "democratic" considerations since nobody can be forced to do anything.

Hello L19,

First off, I would like to apologize for my extended absence from the forums. I went through a few life changes from finishing to school to moving to a different state and currently having no reliable source of internet. As my situation improves I hope to see you all much more often.

Addressing the issue of transparency, there have been some inquiry into our process of disciplining users. There are a few reasons we make the process private. The biggest reason being the privacy of the user in question. I know as a user I wouldn't want my business aired out to everyone. The same goes for the idea to have a public record of banned users. I wouldn't want anyone to know I was banned or have my name on public record as well.

I agree with the idea that a working system could always have room for improvements and we are always open to suggestions. If you have suggestions please give them, in fact I hope to see them. However; please don't be offended if the suggestion isn't implemented. It may not be the that the idea was bad, but that we are limited to our options and unable to implement it for some reason.

I will only give a short reply to the “Jordus is the almighty” stuff that happened here. While I like the idea of being an omnipresent god with amazing powers, I am not. This is a community forum ran for the community by the community through representatives chosen by the community. The only “power” I have ever “flexed” was to break stalemates that the admin discussion may have come upon.

Thank you guys for being such great forum members and for being a part of making the rich and fun community that surrounds one of our favorite hobbies.

See you guys again soon.

Bantari wrote:Some rules pass the test of time, some do not.
Also - times change and so the rules might need to change.

I think you misunderstood me. I'm all for changing the rules when they don't work. What I dislike is the changing of the rules to correct their application.

Once that rule has been applied, I have no problem with the rule being changed from that point on.

What I'm strongly against is the changing of the rules based on who were they applied to and how strong he or his friends cry.

I have nothing against the proposal of changing the "self-promotion" rules (I'd vote for making them harsher, not weaker). I have much against discussing a mod decision that's been made based on the current rules that we've all accepted.

Bantari wrote:Without any way from the user to have an input, the few overworked admins might not even notice... until people move to a new forum.

I agree.

Bantari wrote:Does what you say above only apply to the change suggestions you personally dislike, or to all change suggestions?

Each and every one. No exception, ever.

Rules are to be changed, not broken. Because changes are made by and for the collective and breaks are made by, and for, individuals.

[admin]
This is slightly off topic, but relevant to the underlying issues.

Despite occasional claims to the contrary, I do not have great experience banning people. So I misused the ban page recently.
There is an option for choosing the length of a ban: one day, one week, one year, etc. If you want a length that is not among those listed, it defaults to permanent, and informs the member that his ban is permanent. It does not, TTBOMR, inform the admin.
I apologize for the alarm that it may have generated.
[/admin]

Joaz Banbeck wrote:

Insane wrote:Since Jordus abstained from any ownership influence when L19 was founded,..

This is not even close to being true. Jordus merely abstains from daily influence. But everything that happens here happens the way he wants it. And when things don't happen as he wants, he steps it and commands that things be changed. When that happens, we admins/mods do exactly as he says or we offer our resignation.

You might not see him. You aren't privy to the commands. But don't let that lead you into false assumptions. It still it private propery and Jordus still owns it. And he is the final arbiter.

Joaz, this is misleading, too. As may be clear by Jordus's post, you and I both know that daily mod decisions are handled by mods and not jordus. That may be ok, but let us not mislead people.

Jordus wrote:There are a few reasons we make the process private. The biggest reason being the privacy of the user in question. I know as a user I wouldn't want my business aired out to everyone. The same goes for the idea to have a public record of banned users. I wouldn't want anyone to know I was banned or have my name on public record as well.

Just to provide some debate. A few reasons for having the process public: The biggest reasons for having warnings and bans public are it shows how the rules are being implemented so everyone, especially new people, knows where the boundaries are, it provides a record of accountability for the mods (I warned them here, they did it again there, so I had to ban them afterwards) and perhaps most importantly it shows the community when something is being done about a user that is acting out of line (i.e. everyone can see the warnings being given) rather than the silence that persists currently when this is happening. I notice that all these reasons put the good of the community before the good of the user (i.e. the user's privacy) and I suppose this is the crucial difference here.

First of all, I assume TOS means this post. Reading that post, it is obviously crammed full of material that is open to interpretation. No wonder modding is a difficult task (and judging is a profession).

To keep in mind: mod features are in the hands of phpBB developers.

Joaz Banbeck wrote:That sounds like a recipe for more public arguing. Have you ever seena forum that operates that way? All those that I participate in handle the matter privately.

Which is no reason to do it everywhere. It's not because those sites do not have another solution, that their solution is good.

Joaz Banbeck wrote:BTW, my inclination would be to have two levels of membership: newbie and regular. Regular members would have full access to the forums where arguing is done. Newbies would not have access to those forums ( to prevent spammers they might have other limits too, such as no posting of links or images )
The primary difference would be that newbies would not be deluged with aguments when they first join. And guests would not see arguing when they are contemplating joining.

Interesting but complicating matters (and sourcecode) too much. And again, this is hypocritic information hiding. Guests should have full read access so as not to be surprised. Hiding things is bad.

lemmata wrote:

Joaz Banbeck wrote:That sounds like a recipe for more public arguing. Have you ever seena forum that operates that way? All those that I participate in handle the matter privately.

... As it is now, it seems as if a certain prolific poster has dropped off the face of the earth without any explanation. If the user's post was a violation of the TOS in some particular way, then what great harm is there in at least stating that fact in the thread that resulted in the ban? It may deter similar behavior in the future. In fact, if his post elsewhere is to be believed, then he himself has not received any real explanation.

Honestly, I would even accept an explanation like "I will do what I want because this site is my private property." I strongly respect private property rights, even if the property is entirely digital. The recent decisions give the appearance of an attempt to hide an unscrupulous act. Of course, this may not be true, but appearances can be damaging even if they do not have basis in truth. Given the rather disappointing "bit censorship" incident and its rather murky conclusion, I think that users in this board have good reason to be suspicious of decisions like this.

Exactly.

Magicwand wrote:PS: i dont know what happened recently but it would be nice to keep such info public since we are all one family.

(sic)
If mods erase or change information, it might very well be to prevent other people from judging those mods. Total deletion can only be justified in extreme conditions (spam, potentially hazardous stuff, ...).

If a mod decision is publicly available, that will force the mod to think deep before applying a ban.

Joaz Banbeck wrote:I really don't like the head-on-a-pike approach. It may deter others from doing the same, but it is not inviting to newcomers.

I do. See below. Note that this attitude towards newcomers feels like L19 is a honey pot trap.

Phoenix wrote:Whether one thinks they're abusing their power or keeping secrets, the truth is it doesn't matter. They are in charge and I for one am sure that they would regret having to take a firmer grip on the forum. No part of the rules state that you have to trust them. So do, or don't. Bottom line, we have to accept their decisions, or they might be forced to do something drastic.

Some of you might realize this post is very similar to one I've posted within the last couple weeks. I just want to do my part to keep the forum in one piece. If there's a problem, refer to the ToS. If the ToS doesn't cover it, speak directly with an admin.

I don't agree. Democracy has a difficult time, yet it prevails on this world. Large parts of the world don't agree the way some countries are handling their citizens in their own universe, even if those countries states that's their way to rule their country (and the exterior world should not interfere with internal politics, etc).

Jordus wrote: Addressing the issue of transparency, there have been some inquiry into our process of disciplining users. There are a few reasons we make the process private. The biggest reason being the privacy of the user in question. I know as a user I wouldn't want my business aired out to everyone. The same goes for the idea to have a public record of banned users. I wouldn't want anyone to know I was banned or have my name on public record as well.

IMO carrying a public (and permanent) ban record is far more effective because it will be a much more severe warning to the concerned user than being sent away for a while; and again, it allows users to find all the information necessary to understand the ban. The information will be available on the user's profile page, but not visible in forum posts (eg with special flags, whatever).

Someone that needs to be repeatedly banned can be banned forever. In public. With full record of the reasons why.

This will give real power to mods, because the users will understand why they took action; users will trust mod decisions and feel respected. And everybody will be careful. Mods can make mistakes too, remember...

I know one thing: much of stuff that people tried to hide, would re-emerge later anyway.

Personally I often have the impression that websites with mods are borne from people that have urges to control other people, and know how to do it, and will structure the site code such that it is easy to do so.

I also suspect that admins, by nature, have authoritarian characteristics and are drawn to modding tasks. There's an extra reason to make sure they are not too powerful.

Alguien wrote:The rules can't be reset every time a very vocal minority starts crying about freedom of speech (as in every other forum). I don't want to have to be involved in every angsty teenager river of tears just to protect a stable and well running forum.

By definition, life is evolution. Rules must evolve if a site wants to live on.

Insane wrote:L19 is a representative democracy with the advantages and disadvantages of this form of government.

Not sure if L19 is a representative democracy.

Joaz Banbeck wrote:
But everything that happens here happens the way he wants it. And when things don't happen as he wants, he steps it and commands that things be changed. When that happens, we admins/mods do exactly as he says or we offer our resignation.

You might not see him. You aren't privy to the commands. But don't let that lead you into false assumptions. It still it private propery and Jordus still owns it. And he is the final arbiter.

Again, this is not quite democratic (yes I know the site is owned privately). And again this could illustrate the potential nature of mods.

Alguien wrote:What I'm strongly against is the changing of the rules based on who were they applied to and how strong he or his friends cry.

It doesn't matter whether concerns are raised by masses or by one single individual. It is the idea that counts, and often it is an individual that will have a bright idea.

axd wrote:... Hiding things is bad...

Please repeat this to an attorney who specializes in tort law. When he stops laughing, ask him to explain the basics of libel law to you.

Joaz Banbeck wrote:

axd wrote:... Hiding things is bad...

Please repeat this to an attorney who specializes in tort law. When he stops laughing, ask him to explain the basics of libel law to you.

Well if this forum is moderated on the basis of tort law, that explains a lot! Maybe we can start banning people based on how good of a lawyer they could afford. Sorry poors.

badukJr wrote:

Joaz Banbeck wrote:

axd wrote:... Hiding things is bad...

Please repeat this to an attorney who specializes in tort law. When he stops laughing, ask him to explain the basics of libel law to you.

Well if this forum is moderated on the basis of tort law, that explains a lot! Maybe we can start banning people based on how good of a lawyer they could afford. Sorry poors.

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.

Joaz Banbeck wrote:

badukJr wrote:

Joaz Banbeck wrote:
Please repeat this to an attorney who specializes in tort law. When he stops laughing, ask him to explain the basics of libel law to you.

Well if this forum is moderated on the basis of tort law, that explains a lot! Maybe we can start banning people based on how good of a lawyer they could afford. Sorry poors.

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.

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.

Second, I disagree with Jordus about the need to keep such things private. If we had stable adminship maybe it would be ok, but admins are often times not even honest or truthful when they do provide information. For example:

Joaz Banbeck wrote:This is not even close to being true. Jordus merely abstains from daily influence. But everything that happens here happens the way he wants it. And when things don't happen as he wants, he steps it and commands that things be changed. When that happens, we admins/mods do exactly as he says or we offer our resignation.

You might not see him. You aren't privy to the commands. But don't let that lead you into false assumptions. It still it private propery and Jordus still owns it. And he is the final arbiter.

This post gives the impression that the admins are merely pawns of Jordus. Especially the '...we offer our resignation' part.

Except Jordus comes out of hibernation to post:

I will only give a short reply to the “Jordus is the almighty” stuff that happened here. While I like the idea of being an omnipresent god with amazing powers, I am not. This is a community forum ran for the community by the community through representatives chosen by the community. The only “power” I have ever “flexed” was to break stalemates that the admin discussion may have come upon.

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.

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.