OT Changes Q&A

[Birdjaguar]

I dont understand it. What exactly are the changes.

They do not affect you Aimee.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

They do not affect you Aimee.

I know but did the rules for the thing change or is this just informing everyone that some people were released. It's confusing and why post it if it only affects ~20 users.

 

[useless]

Well, that's not really assuring at all.

So we'll just have to hope that a mod that deals with such infractions doesn't have a hatred of certain posters?

What an objective and fair process.

 

[Maniacal]

I'm not sure but 3-4 years I think. Some of you would know better than me.

Whoah, whoah... hold on there for a second. You've had people on this list for FOUR YEARS and they STILL have not changed their behaviour enough to be taken off? Wouldn't that be a sign that they should have been, I dunno, banned by now since they clearly aren't improving? The inefficiency rivals that of some government agencies.

We understand the seriousness of what we are doing and what it could mean to the current persona of those affected. I would not want to lose 10 years of posting history and 22,000 posts and have to start over with a DL that tries to mask who I had been posting as all those years. Any rhyming verse would give me away. This is serious business.

If these people are that worried about losing their account, shouldn't they have been able to change their ways by now? And if they aren't willing to then obviously they aren't welcome here. They had up to FOUR YEARS already!

I will encourage discussion when a mod want to award permanent points so we are sure they are deserved and will hold up under any review.

Good (I guess, I probably don't care about any of those on the list). Hopefully that won't take months.

Keep in mind that the folks on this list and the only ones affected are less than 12 in number.

Still I am glad that the mods are, for once at least, being more open about what they are doing.

I know but did the rules for the thing change or is this just informing everyone that some people were released. It's confusing and why post it if it only affects ~20 users.

Did you read it? Also any openness about moderation practices is welcomed.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

Whoah, whoah... hold on there for a second. You've had people on this list for FOUR YEARS and they STILL have not changed their behaviour enough to be taken off? Wouldn't that be a sign that they should have been, I dunno, banned by now since they clearly aren't improving? The inefficiency rivals that of some government agencies.


If these people are that worried about losing their account, shouldn't they have been able to change their ways by now? And if they aren't willing to then obviously they aren't welcome here. They had up to FOUR YEARS already!


Good (I guess, I probably don't care about any of those on the list). Hopefully that won't take months.


Still I am glad that the mods are, for once at least, being more open about what they are doing.


Did you read it? Also any openness about moderation practices is welcomed.

I read it but I got confused .

 

[Birdjaguar]

I don't think this system is arbitrary and unpredictable enough.

Thank you; we appreciate your support.

Well, that's not really assuring at all.

So we'll just have to hope that a mod that deals with such infractions doesn't have a hatred of certain posters?

What an objective and fair process.

It is not meant to be reassuring. It is meant to be realistic. Post carefully. Because there are so few people on the list, I hope we (mods and supermods and admins) can pay close attention to who gets these points and why.

 

[azzaman333]

So, since I haven't received a PM, I'm off the road right?

 

[useless]

I could post carefully, but if certain mods look at my posts, and see what -THEY- want to see, no amount of self-censoring will stop those infractions.

 

[MobBoss]

So, since I haven't received a PM, I'm off the road right?

Nope.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I could post carefully, but if certain mods look at my posts, and see what -THEY- want to see, no amount of self-censoring will stop those infractions.

Not quite. A mod will never infract you for a totally constructive, clearly OK post. And if they did, the Supermods would just reverse it.

The problems come up when people disagree on rules interpretations. Although generally if you're on that list, you'd have enough experience to know exactly how the mods apply the rules (Something I happen to be basically aware of at this point.)

 

[Birdjaguar]

Whoah, whoah... hold on there for a second. You've had people on this list for FOUR YEARS and they STILL have not changed their behaviour enough to be taken off? Wouldn't that be a sign that they should have been, I dunno, banned by now since they clearly aren't improving? The inefficiency rivals that of some government agencies.


If these people are that worried about losing their account, shouldn't they have been able to change their ways by now? And if they aren't willing to then obviously they aren't welcome here. They had up to FOUR YEARS already!


Good (I guess, I probably don't care about any of those on the list). Hopefully that won't take months.


Still I am glad that the mods are, for once at least, being more open about what they are doing.


Did you read it? Also any openness about moderation practices is welcomed.

The old Road was a very long process that involved escalated ban lengths over time that only ended in a PB after all the shorter bans had been used. Not everyone on that list had been on it from the beginning anyway.

The staff forums are more inefficient than the US Senate.

 

[useless]

Not quite. A mod will never infract you for a totally constructive, clearly OK post. And if they did, the Supermods would just reverse it.

The problems come up when people disagree on rules interpretations. Although generally if you're on that list, you'd have enough experience to know exactly how the mods apply the rules (Something I happen to be basically aware of at this point.)

This simply isn't the case. Moderators are human, and yes they make mistakes, but they too have views, their favourite posters and those they disliked.

 

[Maniacal]

The staff forums are more inefficient than the US Senate.

Sometimes I find that difficult to believe.

 

[GhostWriter16]

This simply isn't the case. Moderators are human, and yes they make mistakes, but they too have views, their favourite posters and those they disliked.

I am well aware of the fact.

However, mods won't just look and see "Oh, Useless posted", "Oh, Domination posted" or "Oh, (Insert name here)" posted, I'll infract them no matter what.

There is bias, and I don't like it, but you can beat the bias if you try hard enough

 

[azzaman333]

I am well aware of the fact.

However, mods won't just look and see "Oh, Useless posted", "Oh, Domination posted" or "Oh, (Insert name here)" posted, I'll infract them no matter what.

There is bias, and I don't like it, but you can beat the bias if you try hard enough

No, but when they see person X posted and they don't like person X, they look for reasons to infract them.

 

[useless]

No, but when they see person X posted and they don't like person X, they look for reasons to infract them.

This.

I hate to be blunt Dommy, but you're assuming that people follow the rules, without fail, without interjecting their own dislikes.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Sometimes I find that difficult to believe.

Sorry, but it is true.

I am well aware of the fact.

However, mods won't just look and see "Oh, Useless posted", "Oh, Domination posted" or "Oh, (Insert name here)" posted, I'll infract them no matter what.

There is bias, and I don't like it, but you can beat the bias if you try hard enough

No, but when they see person X posted and they don't like person X, they look for reasons to infract them.

This.

I hate to be blunt Dommy, but you're assuming that people follow the rules, without fail, without interjecting their own dislikes.

All of this is true. Welcome to real life on the internet. All the mods are different and will continue to be. It is an imperfect world. I can be pretty lenient, others like Turner are often less so. You know that. You know who is likely to infract you. Post accordingly. We discuss controversial posts to reduce biases, but keep in mind, that for each of those on this list, there is a very long history of problem posts and you have already been told to change. Your sympathy accounts are empty.

 

[useless]

I brought up a valid criticism of your scheme.

Isn't that the point of this thread?

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

I posted a suggestion in the suggestions board about the moderator bias that was partly inspired by some of the things said here. So if you're interested please take a look

 

[LucyDuke]

I freely admit sometimes I refrain from insulting someone who's being stupid solely because I'd rather not take the infraction points.

That's... impressive?