Are mods kept an eye on? How are they selected? Any vetting?

Post Reply New Topic

Sometimes you open a thread and think,"holy cow what did I just step into?"

it is likely that you stepped into somewhere in india if you perceived holy cows around.

I've noticed the opposite, people who make erroneous points usually get the most attention through ensuing arguments.
"Click bait"

I don't know what all the recent fuss is about because I haven't been around much. I can only say that I just don't enjoy posting here anymore and the way this forum has been moderated in the last year or so has a lot to do with it.

Software is half the problem here, it practically enables abuse and totalitarianism, even if no one actively practices such an absolutist stance. I think I've read somewhere that Alex either wrote or customized it as it is, and so the question needs to be asked as to what the intention was when currently there is absolutely no transparency.

There is some well written sound fair and logical transparency here in case you missed it. Also that is just an fyi, I don't want to debate anything in that thread since its locked but I have to say if the moderators don't appeal to your senses in that thread then they never will. It was calm when there was little reason to be calm, it was logical when it really didn't need to be logical. You being here is transparency and you have been far from abused, I would say even some what liked. You don't have to be here right now, I hope you see that.

Thank you.

dc, I don't mean logical transparency, I mean actual sensible software comparable to most other popular fora. The least that could happen is an open system where the software doesn't act like Stalin on a bad day and not even let you read. Did you know that? Logging out is necessary if one wants to even see the forum, how screwed up is that? Not to mention no appeal process whatsoever... heck, before I happened to point it out, as if I was somehow the first to experience it even though it wasn't, even the redirecting email address was broken, and now it simply leads to some guy who's already busy with public speaking and who knows what else. As mentioned, Wikipedia has own talk pages still enabled to appeal, the ability to actually message the accuser and others - here it doesn't even show a name! Mailing lists too, but no, here a broken email address is fine, is it? Not even bothering to register it with an SMTP system now, are we?

Well that is fair to be honest but that is more technical then showing transparency to me,

I personally always thought it was dumb to not have an open line of communication with people that are banned. If I wasn't given a reason to be banned then frankly, to be honest, I would create another account too just to know why I was banned and to get that open line of communication. It seems to me that all sites should have some way to communicate after being banned rather through appeal or whatever. Still I see this less as a transparency issue and more of a technical issue and Wrong Planet barely functions so they need to fix that before they add an appeal page for banned members. I haven't been banned here ever so I can't say what its like but just a "you are banned" with no real reason attached does seem stupid to me from a technical stand point.

AFAIK, members do receive notification of the reason for a ban. We fill in the reason and tick a "notify user of reason" box before activating a temporary or permanent ban. Also, other than obvious new account spammers, trollers and the like (who are despatched without warning), there is usually a four step process for "real" members before a temporary or permanent ban is imposed for persistent rule breaking (and this happens to a very small percentage of members).

First a member is informally advised of an issue via PM; then if the user persists, a formal warning is sent. If the offensive behaviour continues, a second and third formal warning is usually sent, and with the third warning there is usually a clear message sent saying that a continuation of the rule breach may result in a temporary or permanent ban.

Moderators advise members specifically of the problematic issue, so that the user knows which post in which thread is in breach of the rules. Rarely, for very extreme offences, earlier banning can occur, though this is rare. So usually, a member will get four chances to reflect on rule breaches and modify their posting to avoid further consequences. I hope this clarifies the process we use.

What is not seen on the forums is that moderators do sometimes offer support for members who are going through particularly stressful periods, so our role is not merely punitive, and I know that all the moderators do care about the membership as well as the overall well being of Wrong Planet.

I might be used to too much evidence on Wikipedia perhaps, but there we got so-called 'diffs', which present specific evidence... here, no one bothers to even use URLs, or perhaps they don't know how to copy-and-paste? After all, I might be expecting too much digital literacy when in comparison with the aforementioned site about 50-100 people are usually needed to elect mods... but no, who cares for general consensus here, let's just rely on 1 person, and after they die I'm sure there will be a religious war as to who the successor is... some fora really don't seem to learn from sociological history.

Hey since you guys are being so honest can I ask why some older banned member have under their username banned and why newer banned members don't have that? I can link to an account with a red X and "banned" under their username, the reason I didn't go ahead and post such link is to respect the "don't talk about banned members rule". Why did this stop being a thing? It would be nice to know if a member is banned to avoid quoting old irrelevant text that people can't reply to.

I can actually answer that one. Alex thought that some trolls were treating the banned mark as a trophy, and so stopped using it on the theory that it might discourage some of them from creating more accounts; not sure it was an effective strategy.

Why are you not a moderator Dox47?

They seem to respect you and your opinion from what I can tell.

Long story, but suffice it to say, I'm pretty well disqualified.

Ah, if it was social related then I totally understand social failures, if you have their respect then you couldn't possibly screw up as bad as I have in my social attempts.

I was moderator for a week somewhere and I got two entire forums against me where they basically posted every kind of negativity about me. I locked one thread, asked to not be attacked and hell broke loose, sounds about right. I did make a mistake of posting under my name somewhere without registering my name though so my life got even worse when some troll came in and started acting like Hitler under my name. I don't go to those forums anymore, it would be my guess they are still talking about what a loser I am but I don't care to read it. I did for a while and was losing my s**t but then I realized I can just leave and the members there that are also here has left me alone so I can't complain. I did my job and I presented myself logically and objectively so frankly I don't care what they think.

All and all it's just another brick in the wall,