Moderatorgate (a YouTube vid for Mods, Quatermass, and Alex)

Post Reply New Topic

Why are you quoting me? I'm not calling anyone a troll. I feel like this was directed towards me.

So what did you mean then? I thought you were calling the former members trolls who came back to complain and then they got banned again. I was one of those people who complained also.

No, I wasn't calling anyone a troll. I just remember WP was in chaos. Certain people were making threads flaming other members. I personally enjoyed it. I actually remember you. I never considered you a troll.

What I was saying is certain people took advantage of the situation. People made threads about Sinsboldly calling her a man. Someone also made a thread about Tim_tex, about how he greets people in the new member section to raise his post count. There was a poll asking if Tim_tex should be banned. I don't even know who these people were though.

I was one of these people. I never flamed anyone but I tried to post lists of previous banned members. I made a poll asking who has been banned. It got deleted once the mods regained their powers.

Sounds like Wrong Planet was the Wild West for a bit there.

It was directed at the thread primarily but certainly the question of whether it was a time to complain about trolls is a good one and that by direct relationship bears strongly on who was a troll or a member venting. It puts a spin on that period in time that is hardly fair in my opinion. It was members after a protracted period of harshly enforced moderation shooting a few guns in the air and celebrating freedom and maybe saying what they felt had to be said without censor.

Trolling. That I did not see. I think Tim Tex DOES post a hell of a lot and any poll suggesting his want to bring up his postcount is likely a fair call.

You betray a lot by your words, none of it pleasant. You make it sound like it was Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia here (despite the fact that it was impossible for you to know, at least first hand). Members may want freedom, but they also have responsibilities to be good members and not cause trouble to others. Anyone who has been banned has shown a lack of responsibility, despite repeated, and I say again, repeated attempts to get through to them. I, at least, and I know that many other moderators did too, practised the 'enough rope' method. We would give the offenders as many chances as we felt necessary to get through to them. But if they failed to heed that, then they would be banned forever.

Put simply, if you were banned, you had it coming. You were told repeatedly that you had it coming, and you failed to heed the warnings. And any who decide to come back are automatically in breach of the rules because they refuse to abide by the decisions of the moderators.

As for your argument that this is a support website, of course it is. And one of the ways to keep it that way is to get rid of the most deliberately disruptive ones who feel that their viewpoint is the only one that matters. They are the ones who cause harm to others. In my moderation duties, I've taken an utilitarian view. In other words, the most amount of good for the most amount of people. Whereas trolls are supreme egotists because they believe that only their point of view matters. Or else they want to hurt others for their own perverse entertainment. Whatever flavour they come in, they're all best when they're off this BBS.

I think it's obvious that the custodians of WP see a need for balance. I think people should be (tactfully) told the truth about things. I don't see what's wrong with hand holding, some people need to have their hands held, at least for part of the way. Then there's some people who may well react best to being slapped with cold hard truths to the face. Everyone's different.

I'd have no problem with people complaining about Tim's posting behaviour, so long as it was constructive criticism and not an attack. Heck, I might have told him myself (I wasn't that interested when it was an issue). Thing is, it wasn't that big a deal, he wasn't impinging on anyone else's thing. Writing welcome to WP a thousand times never really hurt anyone.

I don't think anyone here confuses people who are a bit brusque in their criticism with trolls.

I don't think we should tolerate behaviour that disrupts other people's support spaces.

If some people want a more anarchic experience, I'm sure there's support sites out there for them.

Last edited by Moog on 08 Mar 2011, 9:56 am, edited 2 times in total.

Perception is an interesting thing Quatermass. What rattles in your head is unlikely the same that rattles in mine. Now you and I both know and I don't think we ought to be silly enough to pretend any different, that the time in question,, that was bought up (when the moderators lost their powers) did not just suddenly happen and for no good reason.

Did it mate?

No it happened for a damn good reason. Now if we are to objectively look at this we could say that what necessitated this need may have fallen a little short of "Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia". That is perhaps going a little melodramatic and again putting an unnecessary spin on things. I am not here to re-write history nor to call things what they weren't. I like to see myself as slightly more realistic.

You may well find that unpleasant. You in fact managed to get through that period where some of your peers did not. Does that make you culpable by association? Lucky? Free of any wrong doing? A good mod?

Well who is to say. Me? No. Were I to it would again be mere perception and speculation. I did contest that you were not a friendly mod in terms of your moderation tenure regardless of how YOU may perceive it. At the same stage whilst I have not seen this friendly connotation linked to you by ...well anyone. At lot of people have said you were "hard but fair". "Strict but followed the rules". Some have said less charitable things about you too. You contested your perception as a "friendly mod" by the definitions posted by the OP. He and pretty much ever report of anyone I have read contests this. If everyone is saying you were a strict mod not a friendly mod then I say the reality is you were likely not a friendly one.

As for the viewpoint of what does or doesn't support, well again that comes down to a number of aspects doesn't it? Consider this. You go into a room among strangers.Maybe a dinner function of some kind. One of the guest is a pretty and well dressed girl. She has accidentally got part of the back of her dress tucked into her knickers. Now here is the ethical problem. It is going to cause the girl embarrassment to walk around that evening with this problem completely unaware. Why? Because it is bad form to let her know and surely someone else will tell her? You could do the next best thing and stop staring at her bum and ignore it and not bring attention and pretend you have not seen it. Better still you could tell her. It will embarrass her and others may see your honesty and your approach as uncouth. You saw the problem. How did you? Were you looking at her bum the whole time? It was not your place to say?

Me? I am the type of person who would call it that way every time. I am the type of person who would seek to call BS and seek not to have honesty (from my perception) downplayed or minimised to make things more comfy.

I would say that anyone shying away from change or taking themselves too seriously or stressing about the inconsequential or reinforcing self-limiting behaviours or excusing themselves from being the best they can be is going to be "harmed" by telling them what they want to hear. By coddling them and giving them unrealistic expectations.

Empowerment comes through working through things and not shying away or having well meaning but misguided people say "There, there. It will be Ok"
Lot of that happens here. It is a support forum. There is definitely enough room for people to emotionally support people by effectively rubbing their backs to make them feel better and others to tell them to get the dress out of their knickers, to stop focusing on what they can not do and take themselves less seriously, stop stressing about these things of little importance, stop being doing the same things again and again and crying about not getting a different result.

Now again we come to perspective. Who makes the decision on what does the greatest good and what is harmful? You QM? Others? From what background or mathematical equation do you derive this?

You don't. It is all perception and an "educated guess" and "gut feeling", were someone to believe otherwise they would be a "supreme egotists because they believe that only their point of view matters".

I am well aware that it the definition you designated a troll and it is sad that we have seen a difference pointed out already on what you believe and what others believe and here you talk about making the decision on what is best when your perception is shown to be different at least in respect to your previous moderation as different from others.

That said you may have got it right. Probably many times. But what about when you didn't? What about when you made the wrong call? What about when your perception was slight off?
When your perception about what I was stating about a time here you saw me as inferring this place was "Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia" which I didn't infer?
Or when you say you were a friendly mod and others saw you differently?
Or when you say that you banned people for the greater good in taking "an utilitarian view"?

I think that this site has a good and strong mod line-up and I think that there is no need to reinvent the past or put spin on the past to further our own beliefs. It may be more pleasant to do so. I do not think it right or fair.

I would not have bought this up if not asked and I figured it would sit well with all and sundry BUT I was asked to explain and I have.

I think this time could be a good one for WP.

Oh I saw that Tim thread but never the other threads. I gotta admit I did laugh at that Tim thread. I remember someone pretending to be Jesus and I forget who that was. He said on Aspergic he was that person. I must have missed the other threads or unless I don't remember. And I know who did that tim thread, he was someone who was banned here for trolling in the first place and he reposted it at I2. I was friends with him but not anymore. He started to insult me there after I told him things he didn't like hearing.

Perhaps you can back your stance here and proclaim in all honesty that when League girl was banned and had her account removed that it was because:

* she had "shown a lack of responsibility, despite repeated, and I say again, repeated attempts to get through to [her]"
* been given 'enough rope'
* "had it coming"

Or maybe you are prepared not to do this? Why? I would guess that it is another case of either (and I will be charitable to you here) difference of perception or wanting to represent things a little more generously. The alternative is that it is a bold faced lie.

Stop doing this Quatermass. It is unfair and disrespectful in my perception to misrepresent the truth even by glossing over things or putting a spin on things to fit in with what you would prefer people to believe.

As I say I not only expect good things from the custodians here but I actually see it now and I think furthermore it is not in spite of the above but because. Learn from mistakes and the site can adapt and change. Bury the mistakes, downplay them or dismiss them and the mistakes will crop up again and again.

I suspect that much of this burying unwanted truths or placing a positive spin is to bluff members. I find this too abhorrent. Why thinking we have to buy BS or be reeducated is beyond me. It is unfair and wrong. We are not stupid and deserve better, if this is truly the case.

I do not have to answer to a troll who takes the name of an absolutely abhorrent Wild West pimp. However, so that the other members hear my side of the story, I will answer those allegations as best as I can.

I don't remember the full circumstances of League_Girl's banning, and I'm fairly certain that I was not the one who banned her. However, I am sure that she caused trouble on Wrong Planet, and that she was warned repeatedly before being banned. It was Alex who overturned her banning, for reasons he refused to disclose to us. We had no say in the matter, nor did he explain why. However, League_Girl, to my knowledge, has at least behaved since then. A rare case when unbanning has at least produced positive results.

However, you are the one misrepresenting the truth, not I! Most people thought that I was a good moderator, and you are clearly in the minority. A minority who believe that they are always right, and others are wrong. I always have doubts about banning, and those who I have banned, sockpuppets and spammers notwithstanding, I took time to consider before I did so. The same went for the other moderators.

I made sure that EVERY banning I undertook was completely accountable to Alex. I made sure that the decision process was visible to Alex elsewhere. So my conscience is perfectly clear. And I take issue to having my reputation impugned by a troll with an agenda. Especially one who does not know (or want to) the processes involved. Those who know nothing can understand nothing.

@QM Sorry for causing your former job to catch up with you.

@AIS You seem to have issues with this site and QM. Know this, people that have been banned broke the rules on repeat occasions. All I have to say is...

IF YOU BREAK THE RULES, YOU PAY THE PRICE, END OF STORY!

Well you can elect to bandy the troll reference anywhere you care to in association with me if you like. In return I will let you know something. I do not say that you are or were a bad, indifferent or good mod. You were never a sweet, friendly accommodating persona but people see you as tough and strict but fair - generally.

Me? I think that you were fairly self-righteous and a bit of a blowhard, but that is personality and not the moderator undertakings. You also seem by action and words (maybe not by thought but again none of us can mind-read as far as I am aware) to think you are "always right, and others are wrong". I unfortunately see that here too. That is the self-righteous bit I used to see then too.

I think the problem in this is that a smart person in such a role "could" make a case for banning based on their perception of things and we have seen on this thread, you simply getting it wrong a number of times. Back with self-righteous or even zealous belief in their perceptions of the situation at hand, corral the person they want to say into saying something to ban or looking at interesting interpretations of a situation to righteously ban them.

Is that what you did? Maybe. I think you are self-righteous (in as much you think I a troll) and I think you are smart. I also think it is evident that sometimes your perception of things is sometimes a little bit off. Bad combo. Not to say you did or did not. But it bodes badly. I do think that most of the members who are unbanned on here and have not left and were around probably have no issue with you or they would not be here...that would make sense either way wouldn't it?

Anyhow you are about to tell us my agenda. I am interested in this too as I had not realised I had one and rather than tease me and the board with such accusation or inference it is better telling class what you mean.

I like this username too. Al Swearengen is my favourite anti-hero. Great series and interesting character. I am glad you approve and you are not the only one on here.
Deadwood was a great series. I think that were it not for Dr Who which I have started watching religiously over the last two years, that Deadwood followed then By Dexter and Sopranos would be my all time favourites.
I kind of wish they would get rid of this Matt Smith and get a person of David Tenant's calibre back. Oh well.

Sorry distracting you from telling us about my agenda. I will let you take the stage and remain silent whilst you do.

How can you say there was no trolling? People complaining about Tim-tex's posts are hypocrites. Posting numbers in the forum games is not any different. Now I'm saying there were trolls but I'm not accusing any specific member. I'm sure there were plenty of members trying to get a point across, but some were just being deliberately abusive. I for one did not care about the trolls. Most of the posts were funny. But that does not mean that people should flame other members just because they can. I see your point but I don't agree with it. There are rules for a reason. Without rules this website would not be a good place for support.

Yes a site can not run without rules. At the same time, the rulings that had been in place or perhaps the way they were being used needed a quick fix overhaul.
In that period people did go a little crazy. Why not? Fear of moderator authority and censor replaced with fear of the unknown? (Tell me that this is not a Aspie worst nightmare come true), Cathartic venting previously stymied? A chance to say what you really wanted to say all this time to the person you "had to say it to"? "Tim Tex. You are a douchebag. I hate you. Rarrrrrrr!! !!.............OK I feel better now." (I have no idea if this is what was said to poor ole Tim but as an example you can see the point.

Now was it trolling (ie activity of trolls for the purpose of trolling others? Or was it members simply venting and releasing pent up angst? I would go the later)