Forum Death Pool

[Hermes]

Moderation is fine who gives a fuck ffs. Can people bitch about something new instead of old?

did you know that overkill applies to brown-nosing also? This is the most passive-aggressive moderator application I have ever seen.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

Besides, you're also guilty of the very things that you want removed from the forum in the first place. Those actions shows your true motives. I wonder who you're targeting next: redbaron?

The fact that he abused power doesn't make his criticism invalid.
Constructive criticism can be valid irrespective of the person that voiced it, it's all plain and there.

Why not judge the argument instead of judging the person?

I agree with THD that creating a 3 day running poll that had around 30 votes is in no way any representation and in itself is only an indicator of the active agents logging on day to day basis.

I also agree that the way to achieve content and attract other users is to have various users produce that content, not pruning the garden.

I would also like to quote Lor and attempt to clarify one part of the response regarding the forum improvements.

taken from the state of the forum thread

If I can sort of hold the gist of your response in my mind and not get too lengthy, you're suggesting the formalisation/transparency/popular opinion route still has merit, because I haven't really offered a counter argument? I might be way off there. Have I understood correctly?

It's true that what I relate is experiential; it comes also from deep reflection on social theories. I shouldn't say that more transparency couldn't work. It will 'work' to produce an outcome... just not an outcome that I think is good for encouraging the type of forum I (or you? ...though I'm being presumptuous) enjoy.

If a moderation team is exhausting itself trying to be openly accountable for every little thing, there is less enthusiasm, energy and time left for more important things. Like analysing those patterns for 'trouble' before it causes harm. As mentioned, even the fear of having to be accountable has stopped good decisions being taken earlier. In effect, it's a feedback loop that compounds the problem.

The moderation need't be more accountable for what decisions they make. For someone with authoritarian power it is a matter of decision whether to make oneself held accountable or not.

The idea behind transparency is to include modbox, posts and other messages that are evidential in making that person banned.

What experiential / social theory do you have on mind? Nothing wrong in sharing it and explaining it to the masses I hope?

If the problem lies in the feedback and hearing it. Then this post is indeed a problem for you, or any recommendation of change.

Why then is there even a discussion of the problem when the discussion is the problem in itself? I might misunderstand your position but this is what your last sentence means to include at the moment.

I am fully aware and I accept that mods tend to do what they want, but I wouldn't like to add unnecessary flowers or ornaments to the picture.

 

[redbaron]

did you know that overkill applies to brown-nosing also? This is the most passive-aggressive moderator application I have ever seen.

I wonder why someone who joined the forum yesterday is chiming in. Which banned user might you be?

The idea behind transparency is to include modbox, posts and other messages that are evidential in making that person banned.

There's a reason legal proceedings aren't open to the public eye until they're finished.

What possible good do you think would come of this? It certainly won't result in greater cohesion between members, that's for sure.

 

[Hermes]

There's a reason legal proceedings aren't open to the public eye until they're finished.

you obviously are not aware of Judge Judy; but no, seriously, they actually air courtroom proceedings live nowadays. Take the murder of Trayvon Martin, for example, didn't you watch that trial go down on T.V.?

 

[Cherry Cola]

Why would I want to be a moderator in this whiny cesspool?

 

[Hermes]

Why would I want to be a moderator in this whiny cesspool?

There could be a number of extremely good reasons, but I cannot be sure of which ones strike you as particularly interesting:

1. You like to waste your time
2. You have no life, and the responsibility gives you a semblance of importance on earth
3. You are a control freak, OCD, and moderation is the medium which allows the release of this mental tension you carry
4. There is a stick lodged so far up your ass making you so miserable, that making others just as miserable as you are, is the only way that you can cope with life

I could keep going, but I imagine that one of the first few reasons hit the nail on the head, well, for most of the people who moderate this site.

 

[Fukyo]

Hi Hermes,

I would like to ask you a question. Why would a person banned in 2010 continue to return to a forum after whining about it and its moderation at length?

There could be a number of extremely good reasons, but I cannot be sure of which ones strike you as particularly interesting:

1. You like to waste your time
2. You have no life, and the rush of getting replies to your forum posts gives you a semblance of importance on earth
3. You can't cope with being banned from an internet forum, due to your fragile mental health and have issues with authority, so returning to the forum from which you're banned to attack the moderation and post diatribes about them elsewhere is the medium which allows the release of this mental tension you carry
4. There is a stick lodged so far up your ass making you so miserable, that making others just as miserable as you are, is the only way that you can cope with life.


Please answer.



Bonus answer:

Spoiler

5. You care

 

[Cherry Cola]

None of them hit the nail. If I were to be a moderator it would only be for the pleasure of telling people to buy some weed and stfu or get tempbanned when they mull and bitch forever about boring shit like rules and regulations.

 

[Hermes]

None of them hit the nail. If I were to be a moderator it would only be for the pleasure of telling people to buy some weed and stfu or get tempbanned when they mull and bitch forever about boring shit like rules and regulations.

well then, I haven't always been the best guesser on the planet.

 

[Hermes]

Hi Hermes,

I would like to ask you a question. Why would a person banned in 2010 continue to return to a forum after whining about it and its moderation at length?

[…]


Bonus answer:

Spoiler

5. You care

Your question reminds me of why I went to Marina del Rey to watch the fireworks this past July 4th. Sometimes it is just fun to watch things blow up and burn. To some it is destruction. To others, it is very beautiful to watch.

 

[Fukyo]

I'm going with combination of the aforementioned.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Sooooo, how bout those rainbows?

rainbo

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

There's a reason legal proceedings aren't open to the public eye until they're finished.

What possible good do you think would come of this? It certainly won't result in greater cohesion between members, that's for sure.

Cohesion resulting from denial of information is a joke, rule of terror where applicable.

Legal proceedings, especially the important and Public ones are broadcasted on TV and the results are relayed by the spokespeople of the court.
And this forum is a public place, every post here is public to other users and every action that gets you banned should be publicised and noted as well.

Otherwise we are playing with secret police, I don't mind this, this is a suggestion to allow the judges to expand where they are making decisions or giving unsupported claims as to why such and such user was banned and the whole process.

The banning of the user is not only the court matter, but is the affair of the entire user pool that finds the suspect important be it positively or negatively.

Socrates had a publicised trial and his defense was important also by how it influenced the public. Every friend he had would know the details and the reasons and then one having this image would have the ability to scrutinize the judge and the system.

 

[Jennywocky]

You know, the abstractions really tend to veer far from the actuality.

I mean, seriously, wtf does Socrates' trial have to do with any of this, except as another way of spinning the sides or this particular sequence of events? Or debates about whether legal proceedings are televised or not? This conversations DRIFT.

To cut things back a little to the core:
A number of people with spotty records got banned.
Some of the bans, based on prior forum discussions, seemed apparent from a mile away.
A few were more debatable and ended up being discussed.

Doesn't really look like a case where people are taken in the night, these all typically look like the tail end of assorted forum antics, soapboxing, staff and member baiting, etc., that finally just play out to the foreordained, entirely predictable conclusion. And then a few people discovering a few loud horns they can lean on, to see how everyone else might respond ("Lab Experiment #2131... commencing... NOW"); at least one of these people already has admitted to such.

Meanwhile, we're left with the noise noise NOISE noise
[bimgx=400]http://www.animationconnection.com/inc/image.php?file=/images/graphics/1235228547-Noise.jpg[/bimgx]
of endless rounds of semantical tennis matches and meta-discussion, where everything just becomes an abstracted ceaseless circle jerk until people's wangs ache too much to continue (some sooner than others), while other members hunker down and wait for the volume to drop, and then the forum once again drifts on.

Because of that, I don't see the noise as helpful in the communal sense; it's more just something that must be endured or avoided, if one desires to remain.

 

[The Gopher]

Personally I would take the sheriffs secret police in their blue helicopters over StrexCorp any day. Although I have to admit I almost get a slight tinge of pleasure that some of mods are being questioned over this. Nothing malicious just a slight tinge of justice. Tis all history now though.

 

[Perfectly Normal Beast]

an abstracted ceaseless circle jerk until people's wangs ache too much to continue

jenny, thank god, i thought there must be something seriously wrong with me and i'd have to go and see a doctor.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

You know, the abstractions really tend to veer far from the actuality.

I mean, seriously, wtf does Socrates' trial have to do with any of this, except as another way of spinning the sides or this particular sequence of events? Or debates about whether legal proceedings are televised or not? This conversations DRIFT.

It was my response to some other member, also I see depiction of BAP/Da Blob as Socrates accurate. It has to do with the proposition/suggestion, which in merit is only that.

I could now respond to the rest of your invalid assumptions to the motivations one might have while posting suggestions and feedback, etc. I will ignore it instead, because your post is what you have accurately defined as noise, stopping all constructive power and trying to show a group of opinions/feedback in negative light.

After your post I have lost the desire to explain things, maybe this is the idea behind waiting and enduring. If something is inefficient or if it is too tiresome to recalculate, then we should endure and not allow these posts to appear in the new posts section as I assume this is what hurts the most, that when someone sees this, immediately it cannot be avoided, but it can. All is redundant at this point.

 

[Puffy]

Well all I'm seeing is

(and Puffy as a possible lone exception)

I actually still owe Puffy a criticism at his request.

ftw.

Spoiler

 

[Helvete]

I was going to pm something to someone here but then decided I couldn't really be bothered so I'd just post this curious and distracting info here.

Carry on everyone. *Rolls a cigarette while discussion resumes*

 

[Pyropyro]

The fact that he abused power doesn't make his criticism invalid.
Constructive criticism can be valid irrespective of the person that voiced it, it's all plain and there.

Why not judge the argument instead of judging the person?

It stopped being a good rational discussion when they used underhanded tactics to get their way. What stops them from doing it on me or anyone who doesn't agree with them?

Besides, I didn't even commented on their arguments yet. Since you're quite open about discussion, why not I discuss with you instead?

I agree with THD that creating a 3 day running poll that had around 30 votes is in no way any representation and in itself is only an indicator of the active agents logging on day to day basis.

It's a straw poll. It should be used only for discussion.

I also agree that the way to achieve content and attract other users is to have various users produce that content, not pruning the garden.

I must say that it should be both. Personal attacks on other users shouldn't be tolerated.

Spoiler

I would also like to quote Lor and attempt to clarify one part of the response regarding the forum improvements.

taken from the state of the forum thread

The moderation need't be more accountable for what decisions they make. For someone with authoritarian power it is a matter of decision whether to make oneself held accountable or not.

The idea behind transparency is to include modbox, posts and other messages that are evidential in making that person banned.

What experiential / social theory do you have on mind? Nothing wrong in sharing it and explaining it to the masses I hope?

If the problem lies in the feedback and hearing it. Then this post is indeed a problem for you, or any recommendation of change.

Why then is there even a discussion of the problem when the discussion is the problem in itself? I might misunderstand your position but this is what your last sentence means to include at the moment.

I am fully aware and I accept that mods tend to do what they want, but I wouldn't like to add unnecessary flowers or ornaments to the picture.

Transparency is always nice. At the wiki where I admin, all versions of the discussion points can be accessed. I've also agreed that I case of an abuse of power, I'm willing to step up on trial and have my editing privileges temporarily suppressed.

As for feedback, the mods do hear things I think a user here asked for a bit more refinement of the rules. The mods obliged and expanded the concept but THD construed it as:

the glorified hall monitors have adjusted the rules in such a way that nearly anything can now be considered a banworthy nuisance

Name calling and smearing campaigns aren't exactly discussions right?

 

[Pyropyro]

Oh lawd, it's spreading. I'm actually glad though.

This is a type of power accumulation THD, just because you're using a different method doesn't mean we can't recognize it.

Exactly. How else do I highlight unequal treatment? The same way BAP did? Or Hawkeye? I've said all along ITT that I've been given it.

There's something called rational discussion. I probably backed most of your suggestions but you preferred to attack users instead.

I also have no interest in being an authority figure here.

Yes you do. People are simply calling you out so you're backpedaling.

The existing system broke me. I'd prefer to be here for awesome & interesting conversation, but there's hardly any stimulation left to spark that process.

Victim mentality doesn't suit you or anyone for that matter.

Then why are you still here then?

We prefer to see ourselves as antibodies against stagnation and comfort. They are the true horrors. Many of the banned fit this antibody profile.

Unfortunately I have no dealings with Lyra. From what I gathered, BAP stalked them before. Any old timers willing to fill me in?

There was no intent to target Cav at all. A few madmin didn't make it into the first round of criticism because I was mostly using the first examples that came to mind, many of which were recent. Some also haven't banned anyone in a long time, so it's hard to find fault even if you're intentionally looking for it. I actually still owe Puffy a criticism at his request.

Uh-huh... If you don't mind, can we use the term admin or moderator instead?

Anyone else who interacts with him in a way that doesn't favor him seems to get banned, so why not?

Really? I had a minor tussle with him when I was new here and they did back off when given good reasons.

 

[QuickTwist]

But...but...I LIKE most of those people.

*fades into the darkness leaving everyone to wonder: What does she mean by "most"?*

Am I right in assuming that I am the person you don't like? I noticed you failed to add a capital Q and T. I suppose its worth mentioning that I can be quite the dick sometimes which might be the reason why..? Also Cav might sees my posts as redundant and/or pointlessly aggressive which is another reason not to like me? Then again I could just be reading too far into the no capitalization thing. Glad I got that off my chest.

 

[Perfectly Normal Beast]

Am I right in assuming that I am the person you don't like? I noticed you failed to add a capital Q and T. ... Then again I could just be reading too far into the no capitalization thing. Glad I got that off my chest.

i noticed that too.

not 'failed to add' but actually changed from the original quote in which they were not lower case, obviously to single you out in some way.

not exactly subtle.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

Besides, I didn't even commented on their arguments yet. Since you're quite open about discussion, why not I discuss with you instead?

It's a straw poll. It should be used only for discussion.

I must say that it should be both. Personal attacks on other users shouldn't be tolerated.

Transparency is always nice. At the wiki where I admin, all versions of the discussion points can be accessed. I've also agreed that I case of an abuse of power, I'm willing to step up on trial and have my editing privileges temporarily suppressed.

As for feedback, the mods do hear things I think a user here asked for a bit more refinement of the rules. The mods obliged and expanded the concept but THD construed it as:

Name calling and smearing campaigns aren't exactly discussions right?

I agree with what you state.
My main point of supporting the opposition was to give more freedom to the potential dissatisfied members to encourage their criticism in that way.

Assuming the information we are provided is correct, I have confidence that the occasional bans are decisions falling into two categories of negative behaviour/punishment are not too damaging.

 

[Pyropyro]

I agree with what you state.
My main point of supporting the opposition was to give more freedom to the potential dissatisfied members to encourage their criticism in that way.

How about converting Suggestions, Questions & Feedback (or a subforum within it) as some sort of neutral ground for debate between the mods and the aggrieved parties?

The rules are:
1. No personal attacks or off-thread harassment (I have a beef with backstabbers)
2. It should have a fixed number of posts (to avoid Ne longwindedness). I'm thinking of:

but instead of time, each "minute" should be counted as a post instead (1 Minute = 1 post). (Less headaches for everyone involved)
3. No banning based on the information submitted on the neutral ground. (so that the parties will not hesitate to speak up)
4. No spilling of thread off the neutral ground. (to avoid BAP-like threads springing all over the place) Whine if you must, but you're wasting precious post count which can be used to turn the tide into your favor.
5. Conclusion after the closing arguments should be done by a neutral mod/Ragnar/etc.

Assuming the information we are provided is correct, I have confidence that the occasional bans are decisions falling into two categories of negative behaviour/punishment are not too damaging.

I assume that people will be honest if given a fair discussion. Of course, independent fact checking won't hurt.

 

[Absurdity]

i noticed that too.

not 'failed to add' but actually changed from the original quote in which they were not lower case, obviously to single you out in some way.

not exactly subtle.

... Or THD's post was edited to correct the capitalization error after Cav quoted it

 

[Perfectly Normal Beast]

... Or THD's post was edited to correct the capitalization error after Cav quoted it

oh, is that what happened?

in that case i can only assume that it was either merely heedless or rather unkind of cavallier to post a list with an obvious odd man out given the context.

i assume nobody minds if other posters edit their minor mistakes when quoting them. i do this because it's not possible for an op to correct anything once it is quoted.

 

[Cavallier]

Ack! It's true!

Spoiler

 

[Perfectly Normal Beast]

burn witch burn!!

Spoiler

 

[The Introvert]

This community feels so big.. yet it's so small...

I love you all. Except QuickTwist.

(Am I helping?!)

Also, tip of the cap to Jenny's descriptive figurative(???) wank session. Too lazy to quote it. Yu muh gurl, Jenny.



And on a more serious note, addressing the issues here:

On the request to return to the good ol' days (of which I've apparently never experienced), what is a solution to this request? We talk about a dead forum due to overzealous banning, but in actuality, what were those banned users bringing here other than strife for existing users? Other than the occasional interesting discussion, most of the aforementioned banned users weren't bringing anything of this sort. If they weren't banned now, do we honestly think that they would be rounding up noobs and integrating them into our clique?

Spoiler

YES! PEOPLE LOVE DRAMA!

Not speaking from experience here, but it seems to me that the most interesting members here are the ones that were either individuals already used to forum-going, or not capable of bringing in any viable fresh meat, or both. They were here when the whole thing started, or essentially so (being used to forums) and were thus integrated into a smaller, more closely-knit community. They weren't involved in any online evangelism, and likely never will be.

Where does the problem lie, then? In the first issue. Lack of real quality philosophical/ theoretical discussion. We don't attract people interested in non-romantic integration, because THIS IS THE INTERNET. To counter-balance discussion, implementation is required.

Aside from creating an online community (which already exists here) or creating a brand new website to achieve the same effect, there is no release from discussion to implementation. Over time, that's sure to stifle even the most professional and interesting discussion; we have no real way of implementing any ideas we have, save for changes in how the community itself is moderated (which are bound by pre-existing rules, and an AWOL owner).

In short, any perceivable changes to a noob that could be made here are limited strictly to management, and well, if you're not already integrated into the system, then what does the noob care? The noob will care if the noob wants to care. The noob will stay if the noob wants to stay. And the best way to entice the noob to stay is free candy allowing the users to flaunt their proverbial junk.

We're not simply philosophers, or architects, or engineers. There's a whole slew of interesting people already here. The moderators exist primarily to keep user-user interactions (AKA citizens of this fine country) in a place where everyone's safety is both assumed and monitored. For this reason, I back the BAP banning simply because he was becoming dangerous in this aspect; he was liable of delving too deeply into the lives of members here without consent, and as such, was banned. I don't know if an IP ban is possible, but if it is, I say that's warranted as well. So long as the average user can come here safely, it's no business of the mods or anyone else if a particular user is rebellious or annoying, so long as they aren't endangering the safety of anyone else. There is (or there should be) freedom to be annoying, or stupid. If trolls aren't rewarded (which does NOT equate to being punished via bans) then simply ignoring them would solve any issues between user-user interactions without moderator interference.

If the goal is to achieve a type of community like there apparently was in the past, then the users themselves will create such an atmosphere, and not the moderators through administrative authority. So long as a particular user isn't infringing on the basic rights of his fellow forum-goer, then under what authority does ANYONE have to deny them of their ability to contribute to the rebuilding of this empire in whatever way he deems fit?


Also, on a side note, the "Dispay" on the tab to open a spoiler now says "dismay". Props to whoever did that.

 

[StevenM]

My psychic vision:

I see.....I see....someone quite random. Yes, very random. And I also see them leaving sometime this week.

Crazy vision, huh?

 

[reevaluate]

So what are we talking about?

 

[Grayman]

...

What is your deepest secret? Dont want to tell? I cannot make you? BAP must have had super powers to get people to release there deepest secrets to him outside of their will.

 

[The Introvert]

What is your deepest secret? Dont want to tell? I cannot make you? BAP must have had super powers to get people to release there deepest secrets to him outside of their will.

Not quite. But he doesn't need super powers to stalk someone.

 

[The Gopher]

PROXY JUST TRIED TO KILL ME WITH FIRE! We both nearly ended up in an actual death pool. More details to come later as I try and survive this burnt down ruin.

 

[redbaron]

Well at least you're okay.





















(damnit Proxy, so inefficient at killing people with fire)

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

PROXY JUST TRIED TO KILL ME WITH FIRE! We both nearly ended up in an actual death pool. More details to come later as I try and survive this burnt down ruin.

Shut up, shut up, shut up.

 

[StevenM]

PROXY JUST TRIED TO KILL ME WITH FIRE! We both nearly ended up in an actual death pool. More details to come later as I try and survive this burnt down ruin.

Proxy : July 2014

 

[Pyropyro]

Proxy : July 2014

BURN teh kitteh BURN!!!

 

[Jennywocky]

PROXY JUST TRIED TO KILL ME WITH FIRE! We both nearly ended up in an actual death pool. More details to come later as I try and survive this burnt down ruin.

What a jerk.

There's nothing worse than a guy who tries to kill Gopher with fire than a guy who fails to kill gopher with fire.

Edit: all is forgiven after reading the anecdote. What a beautiful feint. He will be bewildered for weeks to come.

 

[StevenM]

*stiffens, eyes rigidly open*

"A message from the mothership has arrived. The image I'm getting is of a career-oriented quadruped from a past life. Early Dec 2014"

 

[Cæilon]

Well, this was a bizarre thread. I'm glad things seem less hectic than they apparently were.

 

[The Introvert]

Things were better when they were hectic.

http://intpforum.com/showpost.php?p=447502&postcount=180