Procedure of De-Modding

Scrumpy Jack

lloydofarrell wrote: »

For what? Being demodded / disciplined / dressed down via PM when they have no contractual / financial relationship with the website?

Yeah, and so ****ing what. Win the argument. Right may very well be on your side in the majority of cases, you may be unquestionably correct from time to time. So go for it. Take them to town. People should be allowed to complain, to have their case discussed in the fullest terms. The most probable method of convincing them they are in the wrong is to lay it all out there and make a full presentation of their error. Allow them the opportunity to find the weight of evidence and opinion is against them. Give The Admin team the opportunity to gain some much needed credibility and respect, the opportunity to have a few easy ones so that they don't completely blow up the world when the target of their ire is well liked / capable of fighting their corner / possessing valid grievances (delete as appropriate).

You voiced the same argument for your own decisions.

Did it mean that much to you? Community and all?

You were free labour.

LuckyLloyd

Scrumpy Jack wrote: »

You voiced the same argument for your own decisions.

Did it mean that much to you? Community and all?

You were free labour.

Don't really understand this post. What is your real screename btw to give me some context also, cheers?

tbh

lloydofarrell wrote: »

Don't really understand this post. What is your real screename btw to give me some context also, cheers?

same question you're luckylloyd yeah?

IITYWYBMAD

seamus wrote: »

OK, we're back to the same debate again.
Basically, the issues are that;

a) You have to devolve power to someone or some group. Every single decision cannot be up for public debate.

I don't think anybody is advocating that every single decision should be up for debate, in fact I can categorically state that nobody is asking that every decision should be up for debate.

b) You average user is only in possession of a fraction of the information that a mod/admin has surrounding an issue. Most of that information should not or cannot be "released".

Quite a wide sweeping statement, but in most cases probably true. However in some cases. where permission has been given to publish (for example) PM's, a little more than a fraction of the issue is available. Now ultimately it is impossible for anybody to be in full possession of the facts as nobody really knows what goes on in another users head, but there should be cases where a reasoned debate can take place, and a decision that has been made (whether by an admin/mod/user etc...) can be explained and debated. This can quite easily be done without full disclosure and without breaching any guidelines set out under the DPA, of which I am sure you are familiar with.

c) With b in mind, arguing a topic with someone who is not and cannot be in possession of all or most of the facts is generally a waste of time.

As I have explained in my reply, it is impossible for anybody to be in full possession of the facts. For example, humor and context can quite easily be lost in the written word, and intent is therefore very hard to justify, in some cases.

What really seems to be a waste of time is ignoring users with genuine grievances, or simply telling them, if you don't like it FO.

tbh

IITYWYBMAD wrote: »

I don't think anybody is advocating that every single decision should be up for debate, in fact I can categorically state that nobody is asking that every decision should be up for debate.

out of interest, what type of decisions would be?

IITYWYBMAD

tbh wrote: »

out of interest, what type of decisions would be?

Well for a start, decisions where there was a genuine perception of wrong based on the facts presented, such as the LuckyLLoyd demodding.

Decisions on Terms of Use.

Decisions on stuff like this

More posts like this which advocates community.

and that's just off the top of my head.

tbh

IITYWYBMAD wrote: »

Well for a start, decisions where there was a genuine perception of wrong based on the facts presented, such as the LuckyLLoyd demodding.

Decisions on Terms of Use.

Decisions on stuff like this

More posts like this which advocates community.

and that's just off the top of my head.

I agree with the last two, where I get nervous is where you say:
"where there was a genuine perception of wrong based on the facts presented," because it begs the question - who decides what is genuine and what is not?

IITYWYBMAD

tbh wrote: »

I agree with the last two, where I get nervous is where you say:
"where there was a genuine perception of wrong based on the facts presented," because it begs the question - who decides what is genuine and what is not?

I don't think it's appropriate for me to discuss the merits/rights/wrongs of a specific case here, but I think you know where I am coming from. If you do not, re-read the thread in HelpDesk (assuming it is still there) and try and put yourself in this position:

What would a reasonable poster think after reading that thread?
Was each party treated fairly, in your opinion?
Was this decision an unbiased one, in your opinion?
There are obviously other questions, but again, I'm sure your clever enough to see where I am coming from.

If, upon reading the thread, you fell that some questions are left unanswered, users should have the ability to post those questions. If there are genuine DPA/Privacy or other concerns, well then let the poster who posed the question know that.

I don't think anybody is advocating a witch hunt, but to simply tell users to shut up or FO, is not the correct answer either, imo.

seamus

IITYWYBMAD wrote: »

Well for a start, decisions where there was a genuine perception of wrong based on the facts presented, such as the LuckyLLoyd demodding.

But as I've said above, some people *always* have a genuine perception that there was wrongdoing, regardless of the facts. There are people who believe that the state arresting people, trying them and putting them in jail is wrong in all circumstances. Anarchists.

So if you were to say, "If you think an action was wrong, you are free to request a discussion on it", then you'll find that 90% of decisions will be questioned. Over and over and over ad nauseum.

As I've previously mentioned, a discussion is only valid if it can be shown that there is some critical piece of information that has been missed. Basing the requirement of debate on some fluffy idea of "genuine perceived wrong" is just crying out for having every Tom, Dick and Harry to raise queries on everything.

I'm speaking from experience here. If someone has a genuine grievance based on reasonable foundations, they will be able to spell it out and it will be heard and considered. On the other hand, if they just have a grievance based on nothing solid in particular, they have to be given limited space and time in which to get it off their chest, otherwise it'll just run and run.

tbh

IITYWYBMAD wrote: »

What would a reasonable poster think after reading that thread?
Was each party treated fairly, in your opinion?
Was this decision an unbiased one, in your opinion?
There are obviously other questions, but again, I'm sure your clever enough to see where I am coming from.

I've not read the thread, (i don't think!) but, the answer to the above would be:

seamus wrote: »

But as I've said above, some people *always* have a genuine perception that there was wrongdoing, regardless of the facts. There are people who believe that the state arresting people, trying them and putting them in jail is wrong in all circumstances. Anarchists.

you know? Like, even an open and shut case would be appealed by someone, and unless you have people who can rule on the validity of a complaint, the only fair way to do it is allow every decision be appealed. and you said yourself that wouldn't be a good idea.

IITYWYBMAD

seamus wrote: »

But as I've said above, some people *always* have a genuine perception that there was wrongdoing, regardless of the facts. There are people who believe that the state arresting people, trying them and putting them in jail is wrong in all circumstances. Anarchists.

So if you were to say, "If you think an action was wrong, you are free to request a discussion on it", then you'll find that 90% of decisions will be questioned. Over and over and over ad nauseum.

As I've previously mentioned, a discussion is only valid if it can be shown that there is some critical piece of information that has been missed. Basing the requirement of debate on some fluffy idea of "genuine perceived wrong" is just crying out for having every Tom, Dick and Harry to raise queries on everything.

I'm speaking from experience here. If someone has a genuine grievance based on reasonable foundations, they will be able to spell it out and it will be heard and considered. On the other hand, if they just have a grievance based on nothing solid in particular, they have to be given limited space and time in which to get it off their chest, otherwise it'll just run and run.

It's very hard to answer your points without getting into specifics, but in short, I disagree. There are thousands of users on this site, and yet we rarely see Admin/Mod/CMod decisions being questioned and I think that speaks volumes for the Admins and others.

The few threads that do pop-up in FB, that are deemed OT or abusive, are handled quite swiftly and well by the admin in charge, but it's far from a case where you see thread after thread being locked or moved because some looney has a bee in their headgear.

If fact, it's only when the actions, such as those I alluded to above, are questioned that the shutters appear to be clamped down, and wagons circled. You cannot deny that. There is ample "evidence" (flawed or otherwise) to say that at least one Admin has a personal agenda, and I have seen at 3 times in the last week the actions of 1 particular Admin been called into question, and their decisions questioned.

So whats your answer to this? Don't discuss it? Shut up or FO? You're not in full possession of the facts? You're not allowed to discuss it? It would breach the DPA? Bull**it tbh.

As I have said I am in no way advocating that each and every decision should be debated, but some should. It is a community after-all.

dr.bollocko

We now have a situation where luckylloyd now has to argue in this thread the general terms of procedures of de-modding because we've been disallowed from speaking in any specifics at all.
Anyone else think this is absolutely ridiculous?

tbh

IITYWYBMAD wrote: »

There is ample "evidence" (flawed or otherwise) to say that at least one Admin has a personal agenda,

why not just present it and see what happens?

IITYWYBMAD

tbh wrote: »

why not just present it and see what happens?

Where? And Why should I re-post, what already has been posted?

tbh

dr.bollocko wrote: »

We now have a situation where luckylloyd now has to argue in this thread the general terms of procedures of de-modding because we've been disallowed from speaking in any specifics at all.
Anyone else think this is absolutely ridiculous?

who is entitled to comment on that case, doc? you? me? isn't helpdesk the best place for it?

IITYWYBMAD

tbh wrote: »

who is entitled to comment on that case, doc? you? me? isn't helpdesk the best place for it?

The community, should be entitled to comment on it, why do you think they should not?

Wibbs

If helpdesk was a more open and less wrapped up in red tape, then yes it would be the exact place for it.

tbh

IITYWYBMAD wrote: »

The community, should be entitled to comment on it, why do you think they should not?

because
a: they don't have the full facts and

b: it's not really anyone elses business and

c: It gives the impression of a mob mentality whereby each decision has to be approved by the masses, which would be unworkable (imo).

And if they are entitled to comment on it, say for example, I get demodded for trolling, shouldn't I be entitled to comment on that? Or shouldn't you be able to comment on it, using the same rationale you're using to justify being able to comment on lloyds issue?

How about spammers? I mean, you may not want to question the decisions on spammers, but unless you can lay down specific guidelines about the cases which can be discussed (and not just the ones you *want* to discuss) then it comes back to what I already said - every single decision taken by an admin is up for discussion by whomever wants to discuss it. That would be a massive pain in the arse, imo.

I'm not saying that lloyd shouldn't be able to appeal, but I am saying that the appeal should be in helpdesk, where lloyd speaks for himself, the admins speak for themselves, everyone can see the interaction, and the peanut gallery (I include myself) is excluded.

If a mod does something which contravenes site policy, then it doesn't matter how many people support him. There's an argument to be made for changing the policy, but that's something that can be done.

tbh

Wibbs wrote: »

If helpdesk was a more open and less wrapped up in red tape, then yes it would be the exact place for it.

ok good - what type of red tape tho?

Remember, it's the "red tape" that differentiates Help desk from feedback. You have said that helpdesk is the place for it, which implies feedback is not.

So which bits of red tape would you remove?

If helpdesk was a more open and less wrapped up in red tape, then it'd be feedback

seamus

IITYWYBMAD wrote: »

It's very hard to answer your points without getting into specifics, but in short, I disagree. There are thousands of users on this site, and yet we rarely see Admin/Mod/CMod decisions being questioned and I think that speaks volumes for the Admins and others.

You rarely see it, that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Admins and mods are shocked, completely and utterly shocked, when a user responds to a ban PM with "Ok, sorry about that". That kind of response is in the minority. Most people will respond with abuse, will start a helpdesk thread appealing on some nonsensical basis or will simply not respond at all and later on piss and moan in a feedback thread about overly sensitive mods and "the man" stifling debate.

Just because you don't see the discussions happening, doesn't mean that they're not happening.

There is ample "evidence" (flawed or otherwise) to say that at least one Admin has a personal agenda, and I have seen at 3 times in the last week the actions of 1 particular Admin been called into question, and their decisions questioned.

So whats your answer to this? Don't discuss it? Shut up or FO? You're not in full possession of the facts? You're not allowed to discuss it? It would breach the DPA? Bull**it tbh.

If you have actual evidence, then present it. An allegation is not evidence. 6 or 7 or 700 people repeating allegations, is not evidence. If you have evidence, present it. Any hard facts will never be deleted or ignored.

IITYWYBMAD wrote: »

The community, should be entitled to comment on it, why do you think they should not?

Why do you think they should? Why do you think it's *illegal* to publically comment on a court case while it's ongoing?

tbh

IITYWYBMAD wrote: »

Where? And Why should I re-post, what already has been posted?

here. And I don't care if you post it or not. you say you have it - I've not seen it. Post or don't post, but don't "hint"

Cabaal

seamus wrote: »

Admins and mods are shocked, completely and utterly shocked, when a user responds to a ban PM with "Ok, sorry about that".

I disagree, I certainly am never shocked I find it great that a user has the backbone to actually admit when they've done something wrong or stupid.
It makes them a better person and I have more respect for them

That kind of response is in the minority. Most people will respond with abuse, will start a helpdesk thread appealing on some nonsensical basis or will simply not respond at all and later on piss and moan in a feedback thread about overly sensitive mods and "the man" stifling debate.

Actually the majority of people don't respond to the ban PM or even start a helpdesk thread, they just accept the ban and wait it out.

They know they've done something wrong and know that because of this there's no point arguing for the sake of it

Cabaal

Wibbs wrote: »

If helpdesk was a more open and less wrapped up in red tape, then yes it would be the exact place for it.

err how is the help desk wrapped in red tape now?

Xavi6

Cabaal wrote: »

err how is the help desk wrapped in red tape now?

Pre-moderated posts for a start.

Also the people allowed to contribute is very restricted to the point where it's essentially a single user against the whole of the admin team plus maybe a mod or two who are most likely to all be on the same side anyway.

IITYWYBMAD

seamus wrote: »

You rarely see it, that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Admins and mods are shocked, completely and utterly shocked, when a user responds to a ban PM with "Ok, sorry about that". That kind of response is in the minority. Most people will respond with abuse, will start a helpdesk thread appealing on some nonsensical basis or will simply not respond at all and later on piss and moan in a feedback thread about overly sensitive mods and "the man" stifling debate.

Just because you don't see the discussions happening, doesn't mean that they're not happening.

I appreciate that, but that's a not the point, or my point.

If you have actual evidence, then present it. An allegation is not evidence. 6 or 7 or 700 people repeating allegations, is not evidence. If you have evidence, present it. Any hard facts will never be deleted or ignored.

I've actually sent on some stuff via PM to an Admin. I'd rather leave it at that for the moment, like you have previously said, you don't speak for "the man".

Why do you think they should? Why do you think it's *illegal* to publically comment on a court case while it's ongoing?

I don't know what country you live in seamus, but here in Ireland, it is perfectly legal to publically comment on most court cases. Sure just look at any newspaper here in Ireland, and do a quick search for Howth.

What certainly is illegal, is to attempt to influence a case or to be in contempt.

tbh

Xavi6 wrote: »

Pre-moderated posts for a start.

Also the people allowed to contribute is very restricted to the point where it's essentially a single user against the whole of the admin team plus maybe a mod or two who are most likely to all be on the same side anyway.

I think if we're going to make progress, it's not enough to dismiss things like the pre-moderation in helpdesk as pure red tape. It was brought in for a reason, and the reason is valid.

Instead, ok, maybe pre-modded posts are not working, but what's the alternative? there are downsides to any alternative, so why are the downsides to your alternative more acceptable than the current system?

tbh

tbh wrote: »

because
a: they don't have the full facts and

b: it's not really anyone elses business and

c: It gives the impression of a mob mentality whereby each decision has to be approved by the masses, which would be unworkable (imo).

Just on this point.....If a mod was de-modded in a manner that contravenes or is perceived to contravene normal procedures, it would surely have far reaching consequences for all other mods and posters, particularly those who might be asked to fill that mods shoes.

If there was nothing out of the ordinary, and it didn't contravene normal procedure then it would be fair to assume that the Admins would nip any unrest in the bud by showing their hand and stating the facts. If, instead, they shut-up shop and banned all discussion of it, it might give the impression that there was at least some validity to the grievance, no?

An allegation is not evidence. 6 or 7 or 700 people repeating allegations, is not evidence. If you have evidence, present it. Any hard facts will never be deleted or ignored.

Surely if a mod was de-modded based solely on their modding style, and the people they moderate, their fellow mods and posters who have had dealings with them in their capacity as a mod clamoured for their reappointment, their concerns would carry some weight?

By extension, the more people, the more weight, no?

seamus

IITYWYBMAD wrote: »

I don't know what country you live in seamus, but here in Ireland, it is perfectly legal to publically comment on most court cases. Sure just look at any newspaper here in Ireland, and do a quick search for Howth.

What certainly is illegal, is to attempt to influence a case or to be in contempt.

You know full well what I meant by that comment. Yes, it is perfectly fine to talk about the facts of a case while it is ongoing. Debating it, offering your opinion on it or discussing "what-ifs", is not. Even the normally ballsy media refrain from mentioning anything except what's been said in court.

If there was public comment on an appeal, the sides would polarise pretty much immediately and then public comment has limited use. Most threads end up like this one - the most constructive posts get swamped and missed by the sheer volume of opinions being offered.

Perhaps it would be useful if there was a facility for the community to privately offer their comments in the helpdesk? So instead of it becoming a debate, people can add any constructive thoughts to the "appeal", which can then be made public if they have substance.

Hitchhiker's Guide to...

tbh wrote: »

It was brought in for a reason, and the reason is valid.

Think we're going to need a bit more than the vacuous "and the reason is valid", given all the detailed feedback against the system on this thread.

tbh

Hitchhiker's Guide to... wrote: »

Think we're going to need a bit more than the vacuous "and the reason is valid", given all the detailed feedback against the system on this thread.

no need to get personal, firstly.

The reason was that in feedback, anyone who wanted to could chip in and potentially de-rail the thread.

So, the solution that was mooted was to pre-approved posts, so that only posts from the relevant posters would be included. I believe the alternative discussed at the time was to have a private forum where access could be granted and revoked as needed, but it was felt that that would be a pain, and, ironically, not as transparent.

I'm not aware - personally - of posts from valid users (those involved in the issue) being edited or removed as part of pre-moderation. It's simply so that if I see something that doesn't involve me, and comment on it, my comment will not be approved.

So what would be your suggestion hitchhikers? you may not like the current system, whats your alternative? I'm assuming you have an alternative?