Dumpshock Moderator Neutrality, Point brought up in another thread Options

[Fuchs]

As for your trust issues, frankly, that's something you're going to have to learn to deal with.

If Cain, as an example, since he brought himself in, has even some nice things to say, then I'd count us as doing a good job. He's been one of the most vocal with issues that he has had, and we have agreed that there were issues there.

Cain more or less stated that he had trouble with former mods, and now hasn't trouble with the current mods. That's not exactly a recommendation of the system and mechanic. Who knows what future mods will do?

And the tirade about being lazy also doesn't inspire much confidence in fair and equal treatment - it's easier to not do anything, after all, especially to people one likes.

[DireRadiant]

And the tirade about being lazy also doesn't inspire much confidence in fair and equal treatment - it's easier to not do anything, after all, especially to people one likes.

You can say what you want, but the fact is I've been most restrained with the person I don't like. If you want equal treatment I can put the work into it.

[DireRadiant]

How about when a moderator who is an active participant in the discussion locks down the entire thread three times in a row? Sure, it's not a targeted action against a specific user but it could be viewed by some as a conflict of interest all the same.

Grinder seems to like Hardy and seems not too fond of Derrie. Yet, the last two thread-wide enforced time outs have come when Derrie and other ex-CGL personnel are bringing to light information that is unflattering to CGL. And what got the speculation thread locked before that was a lack of "real information", which seems rather silly until you realize that the moderator who locked it appears tired of the whole discussion, and wants it to just stop until the next press release comes out.

I approve and support all of Grinders actions. They do not happen is isolation or independently. Typically they are part of a coordinated action or preplanned responses to certain events or levels of activity. Grinder happens to be the one taking the action, but it's something the moderating team knows about.

Now let's imagine he posted comments in support of AH and against CGL, and still took the same actions, would this still be an issue? Is it an issue because of which side he's commented on, and that he's expressed his personal feelings?

Let's imagine I have different views then Grinder on the issue in the thread. I still approve of his moderator actions.

Mine or Grinders personal opinions and expression of such have no relation to our actions as moderators.

[Fuchs]

Mine or Grinders personal opinions and expression of such have no relation to our actions as moderators.

I sincerly doubt that. I especially do not believe the "We can't say who's right or wrong in this" line.

Regardless of that it should not matter at all for moderation who is right or wrong with regards to AH's and JH's others' claims. What should matter is whether or not a poster is violating the ToS.

[Grinder]

Grinder seems to like Hardy and seems not too fond of Derrie. Yet, the last two thread-wide enforced time outs have come when Derrie and other ex-CGL personnel are bringing to light information that is unflattering to CGL. And what got the speculation thread locked before that was a lack of "real information", which seems rather silly until you realize that the moderator who locked it appears tired of the whole discussion, and wants it to just stop until the next press release comes out.

I don't know neither Bobbie Derie nor Jason M. Hardy personally, for the record. I didn't closed thread #8 to prevent Bobbie and other ex-freelancers to express their opinion or to bring anything to light that is not in favor of CGLs handling of the whole matter, but it seems to me that Bobbie easily lets his rage/ frustration get the upper hand when he posts in regard to Jason/ CGL. Other posters chime and all of a sudden the overall tone gets angrier. Nobody wins in this, so giving the possibility to cool down, take a breath and calm down maybe can help to keep the tone civil.

My personal oponion about the last CGL-threads are just that: personal opinions (that's why they aren't in mod color).

[Grinder]

I sincerly doubt that. I especially do not believe the "We can't say who's right or wrong in this" line.

So who's right and who's wrong? I doubt that anyone here can judge that and advise Bobbie and Jason to sort that out with help of a neutral person, outside of dumpshock.com.

[Fuchs]

So who's right and who's wrong? I doubt that anyone here can judge that and advise Bobbie and Jason to sort that out with help of a neutral person, outside of dumpshock.com.

AH stated that the header of one of his drafts had been used in the latest PDF. Other posters disagreed, sometimes in questionable ways accusing him of lieing, or claimed it was coincidence.

JH himself confirmed that AH had been correct, a mistake had been made by him and AH's draft header had been used.

AH was right, those who claimed it was coincidence or that AH was lieing were wrong.

Simple.

[DireRadiant]

The thread was locked regardless of which party is right or wrong because the thread was filling with inflammatory posts. Locking the thread affects all parties.

[LurkerOutThere]

Fuchs, what is your fix? What would make everything perfect in your world, because I'ma little confused on where you want things to go. You don't want threads to be locked because they are inflamatory, you do want the mods to come down on those who don't agree with you (JH vs AH) but not when they don't agree with you (basically anyone Vs IMR).

[Fuchs]

Fuchs, what is your fix? What would make everything perfect in your world, because I'ma little confused on where you want things to go. You don't want threads to be locked because they are inflamatory, you do want the mods to come down on those who don't agree with you (JH vs AH) but not when they don't agree with you (basically anyone Vs IMR).

I want the mods to come down on everyone who violates the ToS, publically. So we know what happens, what is tolerated, and that there is no favoritism.

No veiled threats from the mods about willing to work on people they dislike would be a plus, of course.

[Wandering One]

Fuchs, question for you. You've got over 4,000 posts and been here for at least 5 years. It's not like you're inactive. Why is this suddenly pissing you off so much? I don't think the old policy was any different then the way it is now.

[Fuchs]

The CGL LLC mess really exposed some of the flaws of the system.

[RunnerPaul]

Now let's imagine he posted comments in support of AH and against CGL, and still took the same actions, would this still be an issue?

I would think so, yes. Conflict of interest is conflict of interest, and opinionated comments from a moderator will always carry a veiled threat of "and if you don't agree with me, I can bring the entire discussion to a screeching halt, even if I don't take action on you personally," no matter how often you plead impartiality of moderator action.

My personal oponion about the last CGL-threads are just that: personal opinions (that's why they aren't in mod color).

And yet, the last three actions of yours that I saw, mirror those personal opinions: This thread should take a breather for a few days; This thread WILL take a breather for 24 hours; This discussion stops for the next 12 hours.

The thread was locked regardless of which party is right or wrong because the thread was filling with inflammatory posts.

At any point, was the option of issuing warnings or timeouts to the specific posters who were making the inflamatory posts, considered? Locking the whole thread punsihes those who weren't fanning the flames as much as those who were.

[Cain]

Since I'm being used as an example, I'll point out that most of my violations weren't troublesome because I violated the ToS. They were troublesome because I was smacked for the smallest violation of the ToS, and others weren't.

In this case, I don't see Grinder as threatening to mod-hammer AH like I was. He's acting even-handedly across the board, by locking down threads. Oh well, at least he's not closing them down entirely. I don't know if he likes what AH has to say, or if he's taken sides, but he hasn't (to the best of my knowledge) actively persecuted AH for an imagined infraction of the ToS. I do think that he should have someone who isn't posting as frequently in that thread be the one to lock it, such as Method, but that's just me.

[Method]

For what it's worth, both AH and Jason H were contacted privately (by me but per a discussion between numerous mods and advisors that preceeded the temp lock). Nether of them perceived the temp lock as targeted toward them personally and both agreed with our handling of the situation.

Of course facts like these probably don't matter... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

[MindandPen]

I think the issue that others were bringing up is the perception of the situation. As all of the mods must know, everything they do is scrutinized since they have that "Admin" group under their name. My personal opinions on this entire thread, and the actions in the CGL speculation thread, will remain that - personal and private - as I've been a mod on forums, and in MMORPG's, before.

My only comment would be that I have seen systems that effectively manage the desires for public transparency while maintaining the privacy of the offenders until a specified point is reached.

-M&P

[Fuchs]

I think the issue that others were bringing up is the perception of the situation. As all of the mods must know, everything they do is scrutinized since they have that "Admin" group under their name. My personal opinions on this entire thread, and the actions in the CGL speculation thread, will remain that - personal and private - as I've been a mod on forums, and in MMORPG's, before.

My only comment would be that I have seen systems that effectively manage the desires for public transparency while maintaining the privacy of the offenders until a specified point is reached.

-M&P

I've been mentioning a number of times that just by keeping proceedings secret moderators create the appearance of being partial. It's especially problematic that even if one is the target of a personal attack one won't ever know if any action was taken.

[nezumi]

I do think that he should have someone who isn't posting as frequently in that thread be the one to lock it, such as Method, but that's just me.

But then it turns from 'Grinder is biased' to 'Conspiracy...'.

[Method]

I think the issue that others were bringing up is the perception of the situation.

There are hundreds of active members on DS, most of whom perceive no problem with how we do things. Regardless, we can't be responsible for everyones' perceptions, especially a small but very vocal minority that will perceive problems with everything we do because they have trust issues with authority.

[DireRadiant]

I've been mentioning a number of times that just by keeping proceedings secret moderators create the appearance of being partial. It's especially problematic that even if one is the target of a personal attack one won't ever know if any action was taken.

I personally assure you that every single one of the dozens of posts you've reported in the past few weeks from people disagreeing with your opinion in a thread has resulted in;

- A reply to you acknowledging receipt of the report
- A thread in the moderator section with the report, and a quote of the reported post
- Analysis and evaluation of the post, and comment from a minimum of 3 moderators
- Where appropriate, action has been taken and recorded

For each reported post a minimum of 3* mods reads not only the relevant post, but most of the thread for context, then provides an evaluation. (From reading the thread and gaining context is where we discover things such as other posts in the thread that warrant attention or the interesting situation where out of several posts that may warrant moderator actions, Fuchs inevitably chooses to report someone who has immediately responded with a differing opinion or questioned him)

You are personally responsible for consuming the majority of moderators attention with your reports or your own posts.

The Forums are not responsible to you as an individual but to the community at large. If the actions of an individual impacts the ability of the community to function effectively then that situation will need to be resolved.

* 3 mods is not a requirement, simply a reasonable quorum. If 3 mods agree, then we are comfortable with the level of consistency. Some actions are clearly taken immediately by the first moderator available based on the situation.

[MindandPen]

There are hundreds of active members on DS, most of whom perceive no problem with how we do things. Regardless, we can't be responsible for everyones' perceptions, especially a small but very vocal minority that will perceive problems with everything we do because they have trust issues with authority.

I'm not saying I have a problem with the way you do things. I'm saying that there are other options out there that would balance the issues that have been mentioned in this thread.

For example, if there was a thread that was member readable (you had to be logged in to see it and at least in the members group) and admin postable where you posted infractions and result. The post would be something like this:

Infraction: <TOS violation, etc>
Action: <describe action>
Source: <optional posting of offending material without mentioning poster>

That would provide the requested transparency. You could also post actions such as Ban's and PermBan's, but include the offenders name.

- or -

Leave it as it is. Either is fine with me, the above is just a suggestion to try and resolve this thread.

-M&P

[Edit] I wrote the above before reading DireRadiant's comment. It would appear that the current system is rather robust indeed.

[Fuchs]

For each reported post a minimum of 3* mods reads not only the relevant post, but most of the thread for context, then provides an evaluation. (From reading the thread and gaining context is where we discover things such as other posts in the thread that warrant attention or the interesting situation where out of several posts that may warrant moderator actions, Fuchs inevitably chooses to report someone who has immediately responded with a differing opinion or questioned him)

You are personally responsible for consuming the majority of moderators attention with your reports or your own posts.

Most of the posts I reported have not dealt with me at all. Last few days I reported a personal attack on a poster I have a disagreement with, as well as questionable comments (accusations of trolling) in a thread unrelated to the current CGL issue.

That you, DireRadiant, choose to distort the truth in this way says a lot about how the system is working.

[Kanada Ten]

Wow. I thought the report button was a tool of last resort. Like "oh, shit the forum's about to burn down" kind of last resort. Pushing it every time there's a ToS violation has got to be just exhausting. No wonder Fuchs seems so tired.

[Fuchs]

Wow. I thought the report button was a tool of last resort. Like "oh, shit the forum's about to burn down" kind of last resort. Pushing it every time there's a ToS violation has got to be just exhausting. No wonder Fuchs seems so tired.

The point is, I have no idea whether or not what I report are deemed violations of the ToS. Without any information if an action has been taken or not, I lack a baseline of what is deemed reportable and what is not.

Does accusing another poster of having a mental disorder fall under "personal attack"? Is calling someone "idiot" reportable? Does claiming another poster doesn't understand a thread inflammatory? I would say so, but I don't know.

The mods would know, but they don't tell.

And notice please that while DireRadiant complains about me generating reports, he doesn't state whether or not my reports actually result in action taken. He just insinuates wrongly that I only report people I disagree with, not whether or not those reported posts actually do violate the ToS.

[fistandantilus4....]

I sincerly doubt that. I especially do not believe the "We can't say who's right or wrong in this" line.

Regardless of that it should not matter at all for moderation who is right or wrong with regards to AH's and JH's others' claims. What should matter is whether or not a poster is violating the ToS.

I want the mods to come down on everyone who violates the ToS, publically. So we know what happens, what is tolerated, and that there is no favoritism.

No veiled threats from the mods about willing to work on people they dislike would be a plus, of course.

Most of the posts I reported have not dealt with me at all. Last few days I reported a personal attack on a poster I have a disagreement with, as well as questionable comments (accusations of trolling) in a thread unrelated to the current CGL issue.

That you, DireRadiant, choose to distort the truth in this way says a lot about how the system is working.

This is all really funny, because we've been going through all the Reports from the last day or so, half from you, and sending out a couple of Warns. One of the agreed very clear cut ones was for baiting and trolling. And Fuchs reported it. Except he didn't report the User wh owas trolling , he reported the person that was being baited. The difference was that the person trolling happened to agree wtih Fuchs, while the other didn't. This isn't the first time this scenario has come up either. So don't talk to us about favoritism and distortion of truth until you can practice what you preach. At best, this falls under the ToS against playing "mod". The Report button is used to report a serious issue, not target your opposition.

And yes, some of your Reports do result in Warns.
Lastly, we don't make veiled threats. As we have stated before, we do tend to watch where there's problems more than where there isn't. Go figure. So when you cry wolf constantly, expect us to be looking at why.