Topic: [Suggestion]Make warnings include the moderator name. Read 3970 times

Frozencat99 · « **on:** October 12, 2012, 03:37:32 pm »

I've just gotten yet another warning for "trolling" the GI thread.

I suppose I shouldn't care so much about e-karma but the threat of further action against my account because a moderator didn't like my on-topic views about the US military is trash.

I wouldn't be surprised if it was the same moderator who marked me for trolling the last time I disagreed with the US military.

justanotherwaygook · « **Reply #1 on:** October 12, 2012, 03:55:17 pm »

Moderators don't give warnings because they disagree/dislike your views. They give warnings because the post violates the Terms and Conditions of the website, which was linked in your warning message.

It was me, by the way (and not the same person who gave you a warning the last time).

Frozencat99 · « **Reply #2 on:** October 12, 2012, 04:00:07 pm »

You were mistaken about me being trolling, though. If I was trolling, it would be much, much more obvious.

Unless I misunderstood what section of the ToS I violated and missed a clause about disliking what the US military represents internationally.

2Aslan78 · « **Reply #3 on:** October 17, 2012, 01:38:41 pm »

oh the claim that people's comments on here violate the terms of service is a pantload.
I got a warning this morning for responding to a comment about how "soldiers and college educated folk are two entirely different people...we are unlikely to be friends."

I took that to mean "people with college degrees are better than soldiers."
THAT comment- the comment of "two entirely different people" was perfectly okay.

Now, I'M a soldier WITH a college degree, and apparently my reaction to that statement and my taking offense at the aforementioned statement ISN'T okay.

I find the moderators warning to be an incredible abuse of power which borders on the discriminatory and that allows a small group of people to remain anonymous.

I'm growing increasingly disgusted with this site and its "staff."

sunshinefiasco · « **Reply #4 on:** October 17, 2012, 01:46:49 pm »

I'm gonna steer away from all that, but as someone who's been warned, seriously, is there some reason why the Mod's username isn't included (or, if you want someone to have to ask for the name, why you can't just hit "reply" when you've been warned)? It only seems to impede communication and lead to people pm-ing a random mod to find out who they actually want to speak to.

justanotherwaygook · « **Reply #5 on:** October 17, 2012, 01:53:56 pm »

Quote from: 2Aslan78 on October 17, 2012, 01:38:41 pm

oh the claim that people's comments on here violate the terms of service is a pantload.
I got a warning this morning for responding to a comment about how "soldiers and college educated folk are two entirely different people...we are unlikely to be friends."
Actually, you were warned for insulting. If you forgot what you said at the end off your post, I'm willing to send it to you via PM. I can't post it here because it is profane.

I took that to mean "people with college degrees are better than soldiers."
THAT comment- the comment of "two entirely different people" was perfectly okay.
That's one interpretation that you're free to make, but surely not the only one

Now, I'M a soldier WITH a college degree, and apparently my reaction to that statement and my taking offense at the aforementioned statement ISN'T okay.

I find the moderators warning to be an incredible abuse of power which borders on the discriminatory and that allows a small group of people to remain anonymous.
Please state how your comment was not a violation of the terms and conditions of the website (you were warned for insulting)
I'm growing increasingly disgusted with this site and its "staff."
Nobody's begging you to stay

BTW, I was the one who issued the warning.

You know what the ironic thing is? Both posts in this thread are complaining about warnings and accusing us of being discriminatory/one-sided.

However, the 2 posts in questions (the ones that received warnings) by the different users were from pretty opposite sides of the spectrum in regards to their view of the military.

The first could be labeled as highly critical of the military, while the second was supportive. And I issued both warnings.

« **Reply #6 on:** October 17, 2012, 02:11:06 pm »

I've been seeing posts like this a lot lately. The only thing I really have to say is that moderators need to look up the definition of "trolling." Being profane and extremely opinionated is not "trolling."

Trolling is when you make pointed or outrageous statements in a serious manner for the sole purpose of eliciting a reaction out of someone or a group of people on the forums.

I too have been warned for trolling for making a general insult at no one in particular on another thread. I guess a warning about being insulting could be argued for, but certainly not trolling.

gregorywan · « **Reply #7 on:** October 17, 2012, 02:31:01 pm »

I don't see how the semantics of trolling is really relevant.

If you're only being insulting, you shouldn't be posting. Expressing opinions, and disagreeing with opinions is fine. When they become personally insulting, it doesn't matter if you're being serious, or intentionally trolling.

It's nevertheless insults without conveying any useful message or point. Doesn't matter whether you call it trolling.

Frozencat99 · « **Reply #8 on:** October 17, 2012, 04:51:41 pm »

On this website, it's clear that you can get away with much and more, so long as you're only politely arrogant, condescending and patronizing.

But if you call someone on it, even if its only a fraction of your post, watch out -- you're a troll!

justanotherwaygook · « **Reply #9 on:** October 18, 2012, 01:32:09 pm »

On the issue of including the issuing moderator's name in a warning:

It's been discussed and we'll be keeping the system as it is.

Moderators act on behalf of the site and that's why warnings are the way they are.

If you have an issue with a warning, message any moderator you wish. The list of us is here:
www.waygook.org/index.php/topic,14073

They can answer your questions; we work together.

Thanks for your input.

Frozencat99 · « **Reply #10 on:** October 18, 2012, 01:59:34 pm »

Why are moderators less accountable for their actions than regular users? Why should we have to jump through hoops to find out?

If it's going to stay the way as is, there should be obvious reasons for that. It's not like people could target a mod or harass them for giving them a warning without risking a permanent ban.

justanotherwaygook · « **Reply #11 on:** October 18, 2012, 02:06:13 pm »

We're just as accountable as the rest of the users.

We're not allowed to violate the TOS, either.

You don't have to jump through hoops to find out, because we're under no obligation to tell you who issued the warning. We act as agents of the site when performing our modding duties.

The other moderators and Arsalan know who we are. It's not like we can go rogue without getting in trouble ourselves.

We want to prevent harassment in the first place (yes, it's happened).

TeachaTeacha · « **Reply #12 on:** October 18, 2012, 02:31:41 pm »

I honestly don't think that the Moderators should have to answer to myself, or anyone else. Sure, if you want to know why you received a warning, you can ask. Justanotherwaygook has made it very clear that the Mods are a team, they work together, support each other's decisions, and hold one another accountable for any TOS violations that they may commit. You can ask any one of the Mods about your situation, and whomever you have chosen will be able to answer your questions. What is the purpose of knowing who issued the warning? What will it change? Will it create threads like this that target an individual Mod? Will it result in harassment of one of the Mods? Or the harassment of another Mod in attempts to have the Mod who issued the warning, overthrown? I just don't understand what you stand to gain out of knowing who issued you the warning.

« **Reply #13 on:** October 18, 2012, 02:54:35 pm »

Sounds like a good way to make the usual drama even more dramatic.

I guess this isn't related, but to me it seems kind of ironic that ever since heaps of new people came here as mods, the site has actually been much, much worse.

TeachaTeacha · « **Reply #14 on:** October 18, 2012, 03:01:07 pm »

Quote from: #basedcowboyshirt on October 18, 2012, 02:45:10 pm

For long-term mutings and suspensions, I feel like the moderator administering the punishment should at least be required to send a PM with an explanation for why the person is being muted or suspended.

Being given a reason, via e-mail or PM, is a reasonable request.

I still don't see a need to know EXACTLY who issued the muting/warning/suspension.

Perhaps the Mods can create a "Mod Team" account, and use that one to send e-mails or PMs regarding the explanation for/details of a TOS violation.

I just think that knowing exactly which Mod issued the muting/warning/suspension, could get messy and would most definitely be an added stressor.

aklimkewicz · « **Reply #15 on:** October 18, 2012, 03:10:54 pm »

I agree with Teacha that singling out individual moderates would not be a good thing. That would probably just focus the wrath. Although, maybe the moderators could keep stats of the number of warnings and the severity of the punishments. That should regulate problems on their end, but really, why do the regular members need to concern themselves?

skippy · « **Reply #16 on:** October 18, 2012, 03:21:01 pm »

Ahhh skip the moderator name. I would at least like a chance to dispute any charges. A message, an email, or a countdown to my ban. Plus why person is being banned or warned. A simple sentence and a link to said post.

I agree if you give the name. People will get nasty.

Maybe an ombudsman or thrid party who can if needed verify if a ban or warning is legit. Maybe some sort of watcher watching the watchers for some mod who might start getting ban/warning happy.

sunshinefiasco · « **Reply #17 on:** October 18, 2012, 03:23:36 pm »

Quote from: justanotherwaygook on October 18, 2012, 01:32:09 pm

On the issue of including the issuing moderator's name in a warning:

It's been discussed and we'll be keeping the system as it is.

Moderators act on behalf of the site and that's why warnings are the way they are.

If you have an issue with a warning, message any moderator you wish. The list of us is here:
www.waygook.org/index.php/topic,14073

They can answer your questions; we work together.

Thanks for your input.

TeachaTeacha: considering that this hasn't happened to you, I appreciate your fervor, but that isn't how they've used the system in my experience. I've pm'd someone, a mod who's posted upthread or the person who's told me to pm, and they don't answer my question.

I get that maybe you don't want to encourage everyone to reply or to have beef with a specific moderator. But can we have a reply button that routes it to you all/the specific mod? I mean, I'm not out for blood. Ya'll might work together to set standards or decide punishments but when I've inquired about a warning, all you did say "that wasn't me, it was X. PM X." (Okay, this has happened to me twice. But it sure seemed like procedure/unnecessary/mildly annoying.)

If you want to keep it anonymous, whatever. But clearly you want individual mods to handle situations they've taken charge on-- that's the only reason I can see for getting the responses I have.

Frozencat99 · « **Reply #18 on:** October 18, 2012, 10:05:58 pm »

I remember based-god's temporary ban. That's another example of guesswork as to which section of the ToS was actually violated.

I'm also not out for blood but will always desire the ability to contest my (rare) moderation with the moderator who gave me the warning, not someone on the team who has to talk to the person in question or guesstimate what the original person intended and decide whether or not to reaffirm or deny a warning (the latter causing drama within the mod team).

You may work as a team but individual moderation problems should be solvable with the person who issued the warning/ban. If you agree on an issue as a team and then issue a warning or ban, then obviously discussion would have to happen with a mod team account of some sort.

Since someone used a classroom example (or was that in the other mod topic? apologies if so): imagine anonymously giving your student a punishment for something and when they ask about it, they're told to ask a random teacher about it since the other teachers also know the rules. Oh, and they have a chart only they can access, so maybe instead they'll say "Justin Teacher gave you the warning, not me".

I understand that forums can't be completely free spaces and that there should be clearly defined rules and punishments for violations. I don't think it's fair that, seeing how our current ToS gives more discretion as to what trolling is than the US government gives to uniform officers, users on this site have to jump through hoops to find out what no-no they committed.

Topic: [Suggestion]Make warnings include the moderator name. Read 3970 times

[Suggestion]Make warnings include the moderator name.

Re: [Suggestion]Make warnings include the moderator name.

Re: [Suggestion]Make warnings include the moderator name.

Re: [Suggestion]Make warnings include the moderator name.

Re: [Suggestion]Make warnings include the moderator name.

Re: [Suggestion]Make warnings include the moderator name.

Re: [Suggestion]Make warnings include the moderator name.

Re: [Suggestion]Make warnings include the moderator name.

Re: [Suggestion]Make warnings include the moderator name.

Re: [Suggestion]Make warnings include the moderator name.

Re: [Suggestion]Make warnings include the moderator name.

Re: [Suggestion]Make warnings include the moderator name.

Re: [Suggestion]Make warnings include the moderator name.

Re: [Suggestion]Make warnings include the moderator name.

Re: [Suggestion]Make warnings include the moderator name.

Re: [Suggestion]Make warnings include the moderator name.

Re: [Suggestion]Make warnings include the moderator name.

Re: [Suggestion]Make warnings include the moderator name.

Re: [Suggestion]Make warnings include the moderator name.