Is there a protocol for dealing with problem moderators?

Post Reply New Topic

It would be allowed if you agreed.

May I suggest a new guideline: that official warnings CAN be posted publicly without prior agreement by the issuing moderator. This would improve transparency and fight abuse. What do you all think? Or maybe make it mandatory that official warnings are posted publicly? This sounds like a big improvement. I'm going to email Alex, you guys mull it over.

no, there are multiple PMs with multiple moderators who have also weighed in. in addition, there is moderator communication about the issue that is not public.

it's an interesting idea to keep all communication public. it would require an overhaul of the system, but i am not opposed to it in principle, if the rules and procedures were changed accordingly.

All you would have to do is post official warnings in a sticky thread. Simple. I don't care about the behind-the-scenes discussion, that's your business.

Can I post the pm? I would do it in another thread so as not to derail this one.

it doesn't make sense to have the warnings public with no background information. sometimes people are warned for posts that are removed from the public eye, for example. or they are warned for PMs they sent.

But the official warning contains all that information. Don't you always quote the offending parts? It's an official warning. It should be public.

I think that you don't seem to be thinking this through.
What would be the point of posting warnings publically - so that a panel of moderator moderators could decide on their validity?
Who then chooses these people? And how is their decision-making to be monitored?

no, it doesn't always contain all of the background information necessarily. and members may not be aware of what led to the warning, so making a public record of it is essentially having members publicly hung out to dry.

if you could convince alex of it, i'm sure that some balance could be found. but suggesting it here is not likely to get you anywhere.

I don't understand. I'm suggesting that when a moderator issues an official warning, it also be posted to a sticky thread in this forum. That would ensure that the Wrongplanet community can see where 'the line' is being enforced, and whether a problem mod is overstepping it.

It also involves hanging a member out to dry, and it could also involve making public information about that user which would be a serious invasion of their privacy - and without that full disclosure of the background, the reason for making the decision would not be made clear.

Okay, but in instances where a member feels they are being abused and would LIKE it to made public, for their own protection, that option should be available. Don't you think?

So maybe not post official warnings by default but allow the users to post them without having to ask permission as you normally would with a pm.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

I can't read Latin but I recognise Star Trek episode names in any language.

alex is. and they watch each other.

You haven't addressed my earlier question of how this would be handled, of how this - what, council of members? - would be set up, run and policed for their possible abuses.
But it's moot, because making PMs public is in violation of the rules.

PS: "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" is roughly: "Who watches the watchmen?".

I think that would just create a flame war. People siding with the moderators and the "abused"

that sounds more like you want to incite people to flame me.