Page 3 of 7 [ 99 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

lau
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Age: 75
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,618
Location: Somerset UK

21 Feb 2010, 10:08 am

superboyian wrote:
I thought personally the moderators also have the same rules as the members on this site? But I didn't think for a minute they have seperate rules.

Indeed, we don't. Whatever gave you the impression otherwise?

superboyian wrote:
But the discussion of banned members should be made clear and for those who didn't know that who was banned should be told via PM without a warning since they didn't know and would be simply more fair.

No. I have stated before, that I feel it is private, between the moderators and the member concerned. I prefer to un-ban someone when they wish, without having publicised their temporary absence.

I am not aware of anyone receiving a warning about discussing a banned member - when they were not fully aware that the member was almost certainly banned. E.g. posting a new thread titled "I wonder if xxxx is banned yet?" does not constitute a lack of knowledge of their banning - it is just an attempt to skirt the rule by feigning ignorance.

superboyian wrote:
Plus not all members have the banned 'X' on there so that's very confusing.

Good. I wish there were no such markers. I have explained above, why I don't like the X at all - except in the extreme cases of spamming/trolling, where we might have used it to stop even more people sending more PMs to us.

Actually - I can only recall using it the once, for exactly the above reason.

Only Alex can change such tags, now, as I have not had admin rights since he sacked everyone two weeks ago.


_________________
"Striking up conversations with strangers is an autistic person's version of extreme sports." Kamran Nazeer


lau
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Age: 75
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,618
Location: Somerset UK

21 Feb 2010, 10:43 am

rossc wrote:
...
Transparency is the key

Is it really? On what basis do you offer this as a law?
rossc wrote:
and without that not only is it impossible for the members to really understand how to stay within the rules

... reading them would help - and staying within the obvious spirit of the rules - and not testing every possible loophole - and when genuinely unsure, asking.
rossc wrote:
but allows no clear ground

show me "clear ground" in any set of rules.
rossc wrote:
for how the arbitrators and governors of the rules (Mods)

Afraid not.
The moderatrors have no say in arbitration (only Alex acts as an arbiter).
We certainly have no say in governing the rules. Alex wrote them. We have no licence to deviate from them.
rossc wrote:
to effectively do their job.

We have been effectively doing our job.
rossc wrote:

They have little to work with and give guesses and this allows them to get it wrong

We have pretty much enough to work with. I don't find myself guessing, at all.
I'd quite like your examples of where we have got it wrong. There have been a handful of benevolent mistakes, in the non-recent past. We have corrected them all, so far as I recall.
rossc wrote:
and thus "the crux" as you [sinsboldly] put it.

Actually, I am rather against "clarification" of the rules. I feel that to do so will just invite some members to search harder for ways to get round them. They will of course, find such ways quite easily, and will be able to say such things as: "I was only going by the fact that rule 17, section 14, paragraph 2, line 5, had "effect" written, instead of "affect", and therefore it does not apply to me".

I feel that the current set is long enough to cover most things clearly enough, without being long enough to justify more frequent use of the excuse "Oh! the rules were too long for me to read." Be clear - that excuse hass been given to me many times. Also be clear that I am acutely aware that the excuse may well be genuine, even with the current length of the rules (ADHD).

There are a few misdemeanours that are NOT covered by the current set of rules. E.g. they do not cover inappropriate PM usage - in particular scamming, spamming, grooming, stalking and plain abuse - all of which we try to deal with as best we can, when they are reported to us.

And... the only person who could "clarify" the rules would be Alex - so ultimately, you must address this remark to him.


_________________
"Striking up conversations with strangers is an autistic person's version of extreme sports." Kamran Nazeer


Mysty
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Age: 54
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,762

21 Feb 2010, 12:51 pm

League_Girl wrote:
Mysty wrote:
parts wrote:
So judging by your response that these banned people keep making multiple accounts why count them at all towards the total users. .If the red x was implemented you could see how many accounts are fake and that would detract from that


No, the red x wouldn't tell us how many accounts are "fake". It would just tell us which accounts in threads we read are "fake".



How so? Can you elaborate?


I can't elaborate on how something doesn't do something.


_________________
not aspie, not NT, somewhere in between
Aspie Quiz: 110 Aspie, 103 Neurotypical.
Used to be more autistic than I am now.


League_Girl
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2010
Gender: Female
Posts: 27,205
Location: Pacific Northwest

21 Feb 2010, 1:20 pm

Then I don't understand then. ^



League_Girl
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2010
Gender: Female
Posts: 27,205
Location: Pacific Northwest

21 Feb 2010, 1:59 pm

lau wrote:
rossc wrote:
...
Transparency is the key

Is it really? On what basis do you offer this as a law?
rossc wrote:
and without that not only is it impossible for the members to really understand how to stay within the rules

... reading them would help - and staying within the obvious spirit of the rules - and not testing every possible loophole - and when genuinely unsure, asking.
rossc wrote:
but allows no clear ground

show me "clear ground" in any set of rules.
rossc wrote:
for how the arbitrators and governors of the rules (Mods)

Afraid not.
The moderatrors have no say in arbitration (only Alex acts as an arbiter).
We certainly have no say in governing the rules. Alex wrote them. We have no licence to deviate from them.
rossc wrote:
to effectively do their job.

We have been effectively doing our job.
rossc wrote:

They have little to work with and give guesses and this allows them to get it wrong

We have pretty much enough to work with. I don't find myself guessing, at all.
I'd quite like your examples of where we have got it wrong. There have been a handful of benevolent mistakes, in the non-recent past. We have corrected them all, so far as I recall.
rossc wrote:
and thus "the crux" as you [sinsboldly] put it.

Actually, I am rather against "clarification" of the rules. I feel that to do so will just invite some members to search harder for ways to get round them. They will of course, find such ways quite easily, and will be able to say such things as: "I was only going by the fact that rule 17, section 14, paragraph 2, line 5, had "effect" written, instead of "affect", and therefore it does not apply to me".

I feel that the current set is long enough to cover most things clearly enough, without being long enough to justify more frequent use of the excuse "Oh! the rules were too long for me to read." Be clear - that excuse hass been given to me many times. Also be clear that I am acutely aware that the excuse may well be genuine, even with the current length of the rules (ADHD).

There are a few misdemeanours that are NOT covered by the current set of rules. E.g. they do not cover inappropriate PM usage - in particular scamming, spamming, grooming, stalking and plain abuse - all of which we try to deal with as best we can, when they are reported to us.

And... the only person who could "clarify" the rules would be Alex - so ultimately, you must address this remark to him.



Actually when I say things or make rules and if people full well knew what I meant but managed to do loopholes, that doesn't work with me because all I care about is "You knew what I meant so loopholes aren't going to work with me." My husband has tried pulling that stunt on me a few times and it didn't work. It just made me mad and I didn't go easy on him because he knew what I meant. But if someone genuinely fell into a loophole and it was unintentional, then I would let it slide by telling them it is against the rules what they did. Now they know. But if too many people were falling into that trap, then it's time to make the rules more clear so you wouldn't have to keep telling people the same thing. Sometimes people fail to be clear so many misunderstand.

Sacking the mods? I thought Alex gave everyone back their privileges except one. Did he not give them back to everyone?

When members don't read the rules, it's their own problem so if they clearly broke a rule that can be easily avoided, then the warning is reasonable. They should have taken the time to read the rules. If they kept forgetting all the rules, keep going back to read them to make sure their post isn't against the rules. The rules aren't that long to read. So I will agree "They're too long for me to read" is an excuse to buy their way out of a warning and have it appealed.

But the rule about discussing banned members, that rule can't be avoided because people are going to unintentionally break it because they won't know a member was banned. So giving them a warning for that would be unfair. Same as expecting them to know who was banned and acting like they were supposed to know someone was banned than telling them that member is banned. If I got a PM from a mod telling me it is against the rules to discuss banned members, you bet I am going to argue it by saying I didn't know that member was banned (which had already happened). If I got a unfair warning, I would just complain about it to Alex like I had before.



makuranososhi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 May 2008
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,805
Location: Banned by Alex

21 Feb 2010, 3:12 pm

Warning someone that a particular member is banned and to continue to talk about them would have consequences makes sense to me; to my recollection and research, no one has been banned for inadvertently bringing up a banned member. There have been consequences when an individual does know (and some have chosen to feign ignorance despite evidence to the contrary) and continues to bring up a banned member in the forums. As the rules do state, the consequences for violating the rules may be a warning or up to banning - there is no requisite warning or number thereof prior to that action being taken, although in my experience with the other moderators it seems that warnings are given generously. The only exceptions I see are previously banned members, obvious trolls, and any spammers. If you find the rule unfair, complain to Alex -before- you break it, as he is the only one who can change those rules; the moderators are simply asked to enforce them.


M.


_________________
My thanks to all the wonderful members here; I will miss the opportunity to continue to learn and work with you.

For those who seek an alternative, it is coming.

So long, and thanks for all the fish!


superboyian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Sep 2009
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,704
Location: London

21 Feb 2010, 4:39 pm

lau wrote:
Only Alex can change such tags, now, as I have not had admin rights since he sacked everyone two weeks ago.


So basically, Alex is the only person who can do all these banning with the red X?
I thought everyone got their privileges back after that certain incident with the mods.


_________________
BACK in London…. For now.
Follow my adventures on twitter: @superboyian
Please feel free to help my aspie friend become a pilot: https://gofund.me/a9ae45b4


sinsboldly
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Nov 2006
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,488
Location: Bandon-by-the-Sea, Oregon

21 Feb 2010, 4:46 pm

superboyian wrote:
lau wrote:
Only Alex can change such tags, now, as I have not had admin rights since he sacked everyone two weeks ago.


So basically, Alex is the only person who can do all these banning with the red X?
I thought everyone got their privileges back after that certain incident with the mods.


During my moderation, only the Admin and Developer could do the red Xs in the first place.

Merle


_________________
Alis volat propriis
State Motto of Oregon


lau
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Age: 75
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,618
Location: Somerset UK

21 Feb 2010, 6:49 pm

superboyian wrote:
lau wrote:
Only Alex can change such tags, now, as I have not had admin rights since he sacked everyone two weeks ago.


So basically, Alex is the only person who can do all these banning with the red X?

There is no "banning with the red X". Selecting that image as the tag is entirely an independent, manual operation, and has nothing to do with any ban process.
superboyian wrote:
I thought everyone got their privileges back after that certain incident with the mods.

Nope. Nine out of the eighteen moderators have been removed - and, so far as I know, that's because Alex didn't remember who the rest were. Alex is now the only administrator.


_________________
"Striking up conversations with strangers is an autistic person's version of extreme sports." Kamran Nazeer


Price
Emu Egg
Emu Egg

User avatar

Joined: 7 Feb 2010
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 7

21 Feb 2010, 6:51 pm

sinsboldly wrote:
superboyian wrote:
lau wrote:
Only Alex can change such tags, now, as I have not had admin rights since he sacked everyone two weeks ago.


So basically, Alex is the only person who can do all these banning with the red X?
I thought everyone got their privileges back after that certain incident with the mods.


During my moderation, only the Admin and Developer could do the red Xs in the first place.

Merle


What happened to your moderation, how come it came to an end?



Mysty
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Age: 54
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,762

21 Feb 2010, 8:32 pm

League_Girl wrote:
Then I don't understand then. ^


What's to not understand? If you, unlike me, think a red x would tell us how many accounts are fake, then you understand, but disagree. If you don't see it, then you basically agree with me... because I too see no way that it would tell us it's how many people are banned. That's what I'm saying. There's nothing there for me to elaborate on. It's those who think it WOULD who have something to elaborate on.


_________________
not aspie, not NT, somewhere in between
Aspie Quiz: 110 Aspie, 103 Neurotypical.
Used to be more autistic than I am now.


League_Girl
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2010
Gender: Female
Posts: 27,205
Location: Pacific Northwest

21 Feb 2010, 8:34 pm

Mysty wrote:
League_Girl wrote:
Then I don't understand then. ^


What's to not understand? If you, unlike me, think a red x would tell us how many accounts are fake, then you understand, but disagree. If you don't see it, then you basically agree with me... because I too see no way that it would tell us it's how many people are banned. That's what I'm saying. There's nothing there for me to elaborate on. It's those who think it WOULD who have something to elaborate on.



I do not understand how threads can tell you what accounts are fake. That's what I was asking. How do threads tell us?



Mysty
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Age: 54
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,762

21 Feb 2010, 8:57 pm

League_Girl wrote:
Mysty wrote:
League_Girl wrote:
Then I don't understand then. ^


What's to not understand? If you, unlike me, think a red x would tell us how many accounts are fake, then you understand, but disagree. If you don't see it, then you basically agree with me... because I too see no way that it would tell us it's how many people are banned. That's what I'm saying. There's nothing there for me to elaborate on. It's those who think it WOULD who have something to elaborate on.



I do not understand how threads can tell you what accounts are fake. That's what I was asking. How do threads tell us?


You're asking me to explain what someone else said. I was disagreeing with them. I was disagreeing with the claim that red x's tell us how many accounts are fake. I'm saying that, whatever a red x marks an account as (fake, banned, whatever), we only see that when we see a post in a thread. If you want to know the connection between red X and the notion of an account being fake, you are asking the wrong person, because I'm not the one who made that connection.


_________________
not aspie, not NT, somewhere in between
Aspie Quiz: 110 Aspie, 103 Neurotypical.
Used to be more autistic than I am now.


superboyian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Sep 2009
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,704
Location: London

21 Feb 2010, 8:59 pm

League_Girl wrote:
Mysty wrote:
League_Girl wrote:
Then I don't understand then. ^


What's to not understand? If you, unlike me, think a red x would tell us how many accounts are fake, then you understand, but disagree. If you don't see it, then you basically agree with me... because I too see no way that it would tell us it's how many people are banned. That's what I'm saying. There's nothing there for me to elaborate on. It's those who think it WOULD who have something to elaborate on.



I do not understand how threads can tell you what accounts are fake. That's what I was asking. How do threads tell us?


They could however look into their IP addresses? But then again it wouldn't exactly work because we could end up banning an innocent member or one of us could mistakenly be.

But in my opinion you could try and spot the way the person speaks and spells certain letters, this would make it much easier to spot a fake account?

Then again, nobody knows and stuff like that can be pretty difficult, I miss being a mod on my friends forum until he decided to close it down. :(
He also knew I was very good at spotting out fake accounts.


_________________
BACK in London…. For now.
Follow my adventures on twitter: @superboyian
Please feel free to help my aspie friend become a pilot: https://gofund.me/a9ae45b4


League_Girl
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2010
Gender: Female
Posts: 27,205
Location: Pacific Northwest

21 Feb 2010, 9:28 pm

I am pretty good at knowing who someone is but that is if I paid that much attention to their posts, then I can tell it's them under a new name just by things they say about themselves and how they write. But if they changed their personality and didn't say anything about themselves, I wouldn't know. Same as how they post.



SleepyDragon
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 May 2007
Age: 68
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,829
Location: One f?tid lair or another.

22 Feb 2010, 3:55 am

lau wrote:
Interestingly, almost every person I have ever seen complaining about this rule [prohibiting discussion of banned members and why they were banned] are those people who are banned from WP and have, without approval from Alex, opened second (or later) accounts


(emphasis mine)

And equally interestingly, there are other persons who care enough about WP to draw attention to what they perceive to be problems. Problems which, if ignored, can and do prove detrimental to the site's functioning in the long term.

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postp2078053.html#2078053

This thread was locked and sunk two days after I made the post — nearly a full year ago. Answers are only now emerging.