When should a discussion of member sanctions go public?

[ravenscape]

A member posts disruptively. Other members get upset. The reports pour in. Staff members discuss what, if anything to do about the problem.

When and how should the discussion go public?

[Pavlov's Dog]

When they find out about your secret discussions about them behind their backs. I wasn't contacted by one member of staff here about any of my posting behavior. Most likely because there wasn't a fucking problem. Now, I want to know what the thread was about.

[Octavia]

Ideally, I'd like to see discussions made public, so we can get community input on just how disruptive a person is being (or not). That would give a more accurate conclusion, especially as it's the members who report all the posts.

Where that possibly falls down in the real world is when we come to mitigating circumstances. We all get grumpy and say things we wouldn't normally say when we're stressed - for example, when we're sick or grieving - and I don't know that it's fair to the individual in question to lay their circumstances out on a slab for every man and his dog to comment on. Granted, it's not fair to discuss them in private either, but I think it's less unfair, if you get my drift.

One way around this is just to let the poster make their own case in the thread. However, some people are going to be uncomfortable doing that, and I don't know that we should force them to expose themselves to avoid some sort of sanction. If it were me, I'd feel more comfortable talking to someone that I trusted, rather than a whole lot of people who I might not know that well.

Any suggestions as to how we can get around this?

[Christina]

We could let the person choose whether they want to do it privately or in public and leave it up to them.

[Pavlov's Dog]

and I don't know that it's fair to the individual in question to lay their circumstances out on a slab for every man and his dog to comment on.

I don't think the staff here is so special that the individual should lay their circumstances out on a slab for every man and his dog in the sooper secret thread to comment on. I have already seen that the some of the staff especially can't be trusted with that.

[deadman_932]

We could let the person choose whether they want to do it privately or in public and leave it up to them.
If there are sanctions, sure. That's part of the "Freedom of Information" deal, yes? At least I would imagine so.

If there's no sanctions, they can wait until a periodic "opening of the books."

Edit: But for right now...I'm just glad I'm not part of the infrastructure at the moment.
Added edit: Of course, if I were, I'd just rule with an iron fist.

[Garnet]

We could let the person choose whether they want to do it privately or in public and leave it up to them.

This is what I would prefer. Well, close. I prefer private by default, public when a person requests.

[lao tzu]

I do not want my post reports made public. I'd imagine that feeling is widely shared. As that post is normally the first in a mod thread, I don't see how this discussion is anything but a non-starter.

[Arctish]

When they find out about your secret discussions about them behind their backs. I wasn't contacted by one member of staff here about any of my posting behavior. Most likely because there wasn't a fucking problem. Now, I want to know what the thread was about.

In all seriousness, PD, the timing of making discussions public should not depend on gossip. It should depend on when and if it is in the public interest. I think the discussion should go public when and if the moderators agree it merits more than a friendly pm or an in-thread note to stay on topic and quit flaming other members.

There were plenty of times at that other website when a post was reported because someone was offended by the opinion being expressed, not because there was anything wrong with the post. There is no good reason I can think of to turn each one of those reports into a public debate. Routine reports handled routinely aren't worth the bandwidth of detailing them in the Town Hall.

[Pavlov's Dog]

When they find out about your secret discussions about them behind their backs. I wasn't contacted by one member of staff here about any of my posting behavior. Most likely because there wasn't a fucking problem. Now, I want to know what the thread was about.

In all seriousness, PD, the timing of making discussions public should not depend on gossip. It should depend on when and if it is in the public interest. I think the discussion should go public when and if the moderators agree it merits more than a friendly pm or an in-thread note to stay on topic and quit flaming other members.

There were plenty of times at that other website when a post was reported because someone was offended by the opinion being expressed, not because there was anything wrong with the post. There is no good reason I can think of to turn each one of those reports into a public debate. Routine reports handled routinely aren't worth the bandwidth of detailing them in the Twon Hall.

There was obviously a problem with me. At least that is what your staff have been saying at other forums. What was it? What the fuck are you guys trying to hide?

[Christina]

I think the discussion should go public when and if the moderators agree it merits more than a friendly pm or an in-thread note to stay on topic and quit flaming other members.

I think so too. We don't use infractions, so that's where any discussion of sanctions starts.

[Notta_skeptic]

I always go by the "praise in public, criticize in private" philosophy.

Sometimes you can be more candid in a private discussion than a public one.

I'd go for an edited (to remove comments about a person that reveal personal information one would normally not know about -- garnered from private IM communications, etc.) thread once a decision has been made.

[deadman_932]

I do not want my post reports made public. I'd imagine that feeling is widely shared. As that post is normally the first in a mod thread, I don't see how this discussion is anything but a non-starter.
Yeah, users making reports on posts (reports that are acted on, esp.) should be private...considered analogous to or a sub-category of the "whistle-blower" deal. Privacy assured unless otherwise desired.

Edit: personally, because I'm a tad sadistic, I usually don't mind telling people when I report them.

[Octavia]

and I don't know that it's fair to the individual in question to lay their circumstances out on a slab for every man and his dog to comment on.

I don't think the staff here is so special that the individual should lay their circumstances out on a slab for every man and his dog in the sooper secret thread to comment on. I have already seen that the some of the staff especially can't be trusted with that.

Then you could be free to make your case publicly. Not everyone feels the way that you do, however, or agrees with your interpretations.

If Christina's suggestion of letting the poster choose is used, that would get rid of a lot of the problem. However, it might bring up a new one: when a non-involved poster says "Hey! X has chosen public and I've read his thread, but Y preferred to talk to (for example) David B and I can't see what happened in the staff forum there. How can I trust you to have done the decent thing?"

How would we resolve that? I think the Ombudsman, who could do check that things were fair and reassure the rest of the board. Of course, there will still be people who don't trust them, but you can't please everyone.

[Pavlov's Dog]

I always go by the "praise in public, criticize in private" philosophy.

Do you go by the "criticize the person in private, but don't involve the person you are criticizing" philosophy? That is apparently the staff philosophy here. I haven't seen the criticisms of me in private. Mason only saw his by accident. Luckily he was able to get quotes and screenshots before they shut him down.

[The 800# Gorilla]

We could let the person choose whether they want to do it privately or in public and leave it up to them.I have no problem with that. See below.

The 800# Gorilla
Bull in a China Shop

[Pavlov's Dog]

Then you could be free to make your case publicly.

I am trying to. But I don't know what the fuck was said about me in the sooper secrit cool kidz forum.

[Octavia]

I do not want my post reports made public. I'd imagine that feeling is widely shared. As that post is normally the first in a mod thread, I don't see how this discussion is anything but a non-starter.

Agreed. It looks like we'll be making the RP forum "Private" - that is, it can be seen by the person who made the report as well as the staff (that way the reporter knows that his or her report is being attended to.

I don't see the need to make said reports public, though - even periodically. I've seen enough tit-for-tat reporting to think that that's a bad idea.

[Christina]

If Christina's suggestion of letting the poster choose is used, that would get rid of a lot of the problem. However, it might bring up a new one: when a non-involved poster says "Hey! X has chosen public and I've read his thread, but Y preferred to talk to (for example) David B and I can't see what happened in the staff forum there. How can I trust you to have done the decent thing?"
If someone chooses to have the thread be private they should be able to switch it back to public at any point, or include an ombudsman in the private thread if they decide that they want one. If they want it to stay private that's their choice and the non-involved person is just going to have to live with it, I think. If someone starts in public and wants to make it private we should also let them.

[deadman_932]

Excellent compromise! I'll drink to that.

[Goldie]

I think PD has a point. if someone was reporting/complaining about me, I'd want to know that someone was complaining and the nature of the complaint.
A simple PM, "There has been a complaint about your trolling in the "Happy" thread."
I don't think the name of the person(s) complaining should be made public

[RexT]

I'm going to make this one comment on your accusation PD. I won't debate it with you and I don't think I owe you any explanation. But I'll say this only once and I'll forever be done with it. Afterwards, I'd hope it gets split to TCR with the rest of junk.

I said Mason seemed to me to have mental issues. That's because to me he appears to have mental issues. Bear in mind that I'm not a professional of any sort, I'm just a layperson giving a laypersons impression of Mason's behavior. If it walks like a duck...you get the idea.

It wasn't a very tactful or nice thing to say, but then I wasn't expecting that Mason would ever be reading it. If I was speaking to him face to face, I probably would have said something like "you have a serious attitude problem kid" or something like that. And you know what, he really does have an attitude problem. And you know what, so do you! And you know what else, we really don't want that sort of thing here, maybe you haven't noticed that. I think you have noticed that and you want us to suspend you too. Well, keep pushing, but we'll leave that for another time.

Now, Mason admitted that he was here for the sole purpose of trolling. No rational person would think that that is normal behavior. Plenty of teenagers that don't behave that way. And the ones that do often end up in a juvenile institution. TR had done no wrong to Mason or given him any reason to behave as he did towards us.

You have no reason to mistrust me or any of the TR staff. But you are being warned that if you keep pushing and testing our resolve, you and Mason will have more in common. Why you should want to do that is beyond me. But that is your choice and we shall make our choice too.

[Octavia]

Then you could be free to make your case publicly.

I am trying to. But I don't know what the fuck was said about me in the sooper secrit cool kidz forum.

You want to know why we won't suspend or ban you for not being disruptive? I don't suppose that the obvious answer will do...

IIRC (it was some time back, and I haven't checked) the disussion began when someone got upset that you called jess a "lying cunt" - unaware that it's actually her screen-name at RnR. If you read that comment and aren't aware of what's behind it, it looks pretty disruptive. Once you know the context, it isn't.

[Octavia]

Excellent compromise! I'll drink to that.

I agree! Thanks, Christina... :)

Will knock up a draft directly and post here for public comment.

[Pavlov's Dog]

I'm going to make this one comment on your accusation PD. I won't debate it with you and I don't think I owe you any explanation. But I'll say this only once and I'll forever be done with it. Afterwards, I'd hope it gets split to TCR with the rest of junk.

I said Mason seemed to me to have mental issues. That's because to me he appears to have mental issues. Bear in mind that I'm not a professional of any sort, I'm just a layperson giving a laypersons impression of Mason's behavior. If it walks like a duck...you get the idea.

And to me, you appear to have mental issues.

It wasn't a very tactful or nice thing to say, but then I wasn't expecting that Mason would ever be reading it.

Proof right here that this motherfucker doesn't need to have access to a sooper secrit forum.

And you know what, so do you! And you know what else, we really don't want that sort of thing here, maybe you haven't noticed that. I think you have noticed that and you want us to suspend you too. Well, keep pushing, but we'll leave that for another time.

More threats. The staff here is great.

You have no reason to mistrust me or any of the TR staff.

Yes I do. You are a dishonest coward and your posts in that thread show it. You are the last type of person that should be in any position of authority.

But you are being warned that if you keep pushing and testing our resolve, you and Mason will have more in common. Why you should want to do that is beyond me. But that is your choice and we shall make our choice too.

Don't fucking threaten me. Do something, or shut the fuck up about it. If you don't like being called on your shit, then tough. Ban me to shut me up, but I ain't shutting up because of staff threats.

[Pavlov's Dog]

Then you could be free to make your case publicly.

I am trying to. But I don't know what the fuck was said about me in the sooper secrit cool kidz forum.

You want to know why we won't suspend or ban you for not being disruptive? I don't suppose that the obvious answer will do...

IIRC (it was some time back, and I haven't checked) the disussion began when someone got upset that you called jess a "lying cunt" - unaware that it's actually her screen-name at RnR. If you read that comment and aren't aware of what's behind it, it looks pretty disruptive. Once you know the context, it isn't.

Then post the thread if that is all it is. What exactly are you hiding? If it was just a misunderstanding, then there should be no problem.

[lao tzu]

I think PD has a point. if someone was reporting/complaining about me, I'd want to know that someone was complaining and the nature of the complaint.

Goldie, m'dear, I don't think you've thought this through.

A simple PM, "There has been a complaint about your trolling in the "Happy" thread."

Visualizes a guy I know being told, "Somebody said something bad about you."

Visualizes that guy responding, "Thanks for letting me know that, but please, don't bother me with any more details."

*fanasy world explodes*

I don't think the name of the person(s) complaining should be made public

How could it not be? There're are plenty of smart cookies around here, and just the nature of the complaint or the timing of the notification would often be enough to finger the reporting poster.

My reported posts are private, and will remain private. If I wanted to turn every exchange into a flame-out session, I'm perfectly capable of doing so directly. Reporting a post is an implicit acknowledgement that maybe, just maybe, somebody not directly involved in the altercation will be able to judge the merits more objectively.

Folks, imperfect is not a rationale for bringing in something worse, and public mod threads are unquestionably worse than private reports handled privately.

_________

OTOH, I very much like the idea of being able to follow the mod squad response to my reported post.

[Octavia]

Comments and suggestions for changes are welcome. :)

If a poster has become so disruptive that staff feel that they may warrant a suspension or ban, the following procedure takes place:

The poster is contacted and asked whether they want the discussion to take place privately or publicly. This gives them the opportunity to offer up any mitigating circumstances in the environment in which they feel most comfortable.

If they choose the public option, a thread is started in the Town Hall. (Posting ability restricted to staff and poster involved - opinions? Not sure about this.) The thread will be closely moderated, and the staff posts and votes public.

If they choose the private option, the discussion and subsequent vote will take place privately, in a temporary sub-forum only visible and post-able to staff and the person involved (also the ombudsman, if one is requested by the poster). Once a conclusion is reached, the thread will be moved into the staff forum proper. [This saves us cluttering up the place with numerous sub-forums]

If someone chooses to have the discussion privately they are able to switch it back to public at any point, upon request. If they want it to stay private that's their choice and any non-involved but interested parties will have to live with not knowing all the details. Likewise, if someone initially opts for public discussion and then wants to make it private, this is also allowable upon request.

Caveat: Spammers and socks get banned immediately, without going through the above process.

[RexT]

Don't fucking threaten me. Do something, or shut the fuck up about it. If you don't like being called on your shit, then tough. Ban me to shut me up, but I ain't shutting up because of staff threats.No one is threatening you PD. We're warning you to knock it off. You're pushing and pushing, and trying to force our hand. Thats you buddy, take responsibility for your actions and stop whining like a baby. Your disrespect for this forum has been clear from the beginning. I'll not take any responsibility for how you're behaving or whether you're suspended.

[lao tzu]

Comments and suggestions for changes are welcome. :)

If a poster has become so disruptive that staff feel that they may warrant a suspension or ban, the following procedure takes place:

The poster is contacted and asked whether they want the discussion to take place privately or publicly. This gives them the opportunity to offer up any mitigating circumstances in the environment in which they feel most comfortable.

If they choose the public option, a thread is started in the Town Hall. (Posting ability restricted to staff and poster involved - opinions? Not sure about this.) The thread will be closely moderated, and the staff posts and votes public.

If they choose the private option, the discussion and subsequent vote will take place privately, in a temporary sub-forum only visible and post-able to staff and the person involved (also the ombudsman, if one is requested by the poster). Once a conclusion is reached, the thread will be moved into the staff forum proper. [This saves us cluttering up the place with numerous sub-forums]

If someone chooses to have the discussion privately they are able to switch it back to public at any point, upon request. If they want it to stay private that's their choice and any non-involved but interested parties will have to live with not knowing all the details. Likewise, if someone initially opts for public discussion and then wants to make it private, this is also allowable upon request.

Caveat: Spammers and socks get banned immediately, without going through the above process.

Comment: Split the above into a new thread.

[Pavlov's Dog]

Don't fucking threaten me. Do something, or shut the fuck up about it. If you don't like being called on your shit, then tough. Ban me to shut me up, but I ain't shutting up because of staff threats.No one is threatening you PD. We're warning you to knock it off. You're pushing and pushing, and trying to force our hand. Thats you buddy, take responsibility for your actions and stop whining like a baby. Your disrespect for this forum has been clear from the beginning. I'll not take any responsibility for how you're behaving or whether you're suspended.

I am pushing. Pushing for some openness and honesty from the staff. If that is a reason for you to ban me, then so be it. Again, stop with your weak ass threats.

[ravenscape]

Please folks, dial it back on the insults and let's focus on working out a decision process for making discussions about sanctions public.

Thanks,

Raven

[Christina]

What should happen if a member wants to start a discussion about wanting someone banned or suspended? Should they have to start a public thread, or can they ask us privately and we can start the public thread if we feel that it has any merit, or what?

[deadman_932]

I'm not sure why a regular user should want to make such a request. I mean...isn't that what the report post button is for and shouldn't that preponderance of evidence be sufficient, along with other non-reported offenses? (ones simply noted by mods/admins and not neccessarily reported by users). If a person B is such a bother that member A feels antagonism...why wouldn't reporting every offensive post that member B ever made be enough?

Maybe I'm missing something that you have in mind, Christina.

[Christina]

I think it would be, but I don't know if anyone ever asks the admins to ban someone.

[deadman_932]

Hah, I can remember a couple of such occurrences when I once modded (the experience made me never want to mod again, to be honest -- "Ban this asshole, please!!!").

I guess the thing is to remind the user of what the "report post" button is for and *maybe* if the person has a point that they can provide evidence for (say like a whistleblower situation) then it has to be dealt with in that fashion?

An example might be: "Hey, you guys don't know it, but X has been posting up information about users here______ and should be banned" Maybe that sort of thing?

[rigorist]

Comments and suggestions for changes are welcome. :)

If a poster has become so disruptive that staff feel that they may warrant a suspension or ban, the following procedure takes place:

The poster is contacted and asked whether they want the discussion to take place privately or publicly. This gives them the opportunity to offer up any mitigating circumstances in the environment in which they feel most comfortable.

If they choose the public option, a thread is started in the Town Hall. (Posting ability restricted to staff and poster involved - opinions? Not sure about this.) The thread will be closely moderated, and the staff posts and votes public.

If they choose the private option, the discussion and subsequent vote will take place privately, in a temporary sub-forum only visible and post-able to staff and the person involved (also the ombudsman, if one is requested by the poster). Once a conclusion is reached, the thread will be moved into the staff forum proper. [This saves us cluttering up the place with numerous sub-forums]

If someone chooses to have the discussion privately they are able to switch it back to public at any point, upon request. If they want it to stay private that's their choice and any non-involved but interested parties will have to live with not knowing all the details. Likewise, if someone initially opts for public discussion and then wants to make it private, this is also allowable upon request.

Caveat: Spammers and socks get banned immediately, without going through the above process.

It's full of passive voice. You can do better.

[rigorist]

Don't fucking threaten me. Do something, or shut the fuck up about it. If you don't like being called on your shit, then tough. Ban me to shut me up, but I ain't shutting up because of staff threats.No one is threatening you PD. We're warning you to knock it off. You're pushing and pushing, and trying to force our hand. Thats you buddy, take responsibility for your actions and stop whining like a baby. Your disrespect for this forum has been clear from the beginning. I'll not take any responsibility for how you're behaving or whether you're suspended.

Take some fucking responsibility. Don't hide behind "staff" or "procedures."

[Reverend Spanky]

I'm going to make this one comment on your accusation PD. I won't debate it with you and I don't think I owe you any explanation. But I'll say this only once and I'll forever be done with it. Afterwards, I'd hope it gets split to TCR with the rest of junk.

I said Mason seemed to me to have mental issues. That's because to me he appears to have mental issues. Bear in mind that I'm not a professional of any sort, I'm just a layperson giving a laypersons impression of Mason's behavior. If it walks like a duck...you get the idea.

It wasn't a very tactful or nice thing to say, but then I wasn't expecting that Mason would ever be reading it. If I was speaking to him face to face, I probably would have said something like "you have a serious attitude problem kid" or something like that. And you know what, he really does have an attitude problem. And you know what, so do you! And you know what else, we really don't want that sort of thing here, maybe you haven't noticed that. I think you have noticed that and you want us to suspend you too. Well, keep pushing, but we'll leave that for another time.

Now, Mason admitted that he was here for the sole purpose of trolling. No rational person would think that that is normal behavior. Plenty of teenagers that don't behave that way. And the ones that do often end up in a juvenile institution. TR had done no wrong to Mason or given him any reason to behave as he did towards us.

You have no reason to mistrust me or any of the TR staff. But you are being warned that if you keep pushing and testing our resolve, you and Mason will have more in common. Why you should want to do that is beyond me. But that is your choice and we shall make our choice too.

The power has gone to your head Rex. It didn't take long. Nobody is really surprised. But I figured I'd just say it instead of leaving it to the peanut gallery to think and snicker about.

Nobody talks, writes, or thinks like this post unless they're on a mad power trip. The funny part is when you get around to making threats toward Pav, you adopt first person plural so that it isn't just Rex making idle threats, but the whole mod team. That's cowardly. Probably about as cowardly as doing your trashtalking in a private forum nobody can see and then pretending to stand for truth, justice, and the Internet way in public.

Stop lying to yourself.

[Gojira]

Comments and suggestions for changes are welcome. :)

If a poster has become so disruptive that staff feel that they may warrant a suspension or ban, the following procedure takes place:

The poster is contacted and asked whether they want the discussion to take place privately or publicly. This gives them the opportunity to offer up any mitigating circumstances in the environment in which they feel most comfortable.

If they choose the public option, a thread is started in the Town Hall. (Posting ability restricted to staff and poster involved - opinions? Not sure about this.) The thread will be closely moderated, and the staff posts and votes public.

If they choose the private option, the discussion and subsequent vote will take place privately, in a temporary sub-forum only visible and post-able to staff and the person involved (also the ombudsman, if one is requested by the poster). Once a conclusion is reached, the thread will be moved into the staff forum proper. [This saves us cluttering up the place with numerous sub-forums]

If someone chooses to have the discussion privately they are able to switch it back to public at any point, upon request. If they want it to stay private that's their choice and any non-involved but interested parties will have to live with not knowing all the details. Likewise, if someone initially opts for public discussion and then wants to make it private, this is also allowable upon request.

Caveat: Spammers and socks get banned immediately, without going through the above process.

Comment: Split the above into a new thread.

What lao tzu said.

For what it's worth, I think that's a reasonable arrangement - either way, the person concerned can see what is being said about them.

[Rathpig]

Just my 2 cents:

If you want an egalitarian community everything should be open. Anyone reporting a post should have the courage to defend themselves openly and the staff should have the professionalism to do business in public.

If you want an authoritarian community where some people are more "equal" than others, moderation is power rather than service, and secret reports are encouraged for secret forums and gossipy discussions then please proceed with a model that has been shown to fail more than once in this very same meta-group of potential members.


Letting the person at the center of an issue decide how to manipulate the situation is conceptually broken. It will be used against the interest of the "community" by the reported party, the reporting party, and the staff. I can already see the dynamics happenings.

The only way for the "community" to police the moderation and the moderated is for everything to be open. If someone is shy about being exposed as a reporter or a reported then they need to act in a manner that doesn't place them in the spotlight.


I wonder how many user notes I had at IIDB? I wonder how many of the very people here talked shit behind my back they couldn't or wouldn't support to my face? I still don't trust many of you because I know enough of what went on.


Do we want a community of equals or do we want yet another format for wankers to satisfy their petite power trips?

Open it up to the light of everyone's opinion.

[Rathpig]

You have no reason to mistrust me or any of the TR staff.

That may have been true a week ago. I now, as an outside observer, question it.

[RexT]

The power has gone to your head Rex. It didn't take long. Nobody is really surprised. But I figured I'd just say it instead of leaving it to the peanut gallery to think and snicker about.

Nobody talks, writes, or thinks like this post unless they're on a mad power trip. The funny part is when you get around to making threats toward Pav, you adopt first person plural so that it isn't just Rex making idle threats, but the whole mod team. That's cowardly. Probably about as cowardly as doing your trashtalking in a private forum nobody can see and then pretending to stand for truth, justice, and the Internet way in public.

Stop lying to yourself.Mad power trip? Naw, I'm just mad, period. I've worked pretty hard to help build this forum and I don't like seeing people like Mason and PD taking a good shit on it along with crapping on the other people that happen to care about TR. So yeah, that makes me pretty mad because people are trying to destroy this place faster than we can build it. And yes, I take that personally and damn well intend to not let that happen. Of course, I realize that TR is not run by me, but is a republic governed by a group of staff. And to get things done requires a consensus of that group, plus taking into account the will of all members. So I'm just one voice expressing my disapproval of PDs behavior. And I will, as long as I'm here, do whatever is in my power (which is not really much power) to protect and defend the ideas that really constitute TR.

So I can speak for the staff to some extent because we spend a lot of time working out policies, rules, and the general philosophy of the board together. So I know a little bit about how the others think. I helped found this forum and I know a bit about the kind of forum we want.

[RexT]

You have no reason to mistrust me or any of the TR staff.

That may have been true a week ago. I now, as an outside observer, question it.So what is your question Rathpig?

[DMB]

I can't see what is so wrong about the staff discussions about Mason. What it revealed to me was a group of people who were concerned for Mason as well as about his behaviour here and were bending over backwards to be fair to him.

PD: I would ask you what your objectives here are. Why are you personally here and what do you want to see? (Please try to answer seriously without spewing out insults.)

[umop apisdn w,I]

If you want an egalitarian community everything should be open. Anyone reporting a post should have the courage to defend themselves openly and the staff should have the professionalism to do business in public.

Agreed - but that implies some kind of social contract where not just the staff but everyone can be trusted to be level-headed and mature and sort things out like sensible adults.

Unfortunately, that is simply not the case in the real world. You will get idiots, trolls and drama-queens and they will - if you excuse the language - shit the place up for everyone else.

Having an open discussion with someone who is in danger of being banned in order to sort out the problem, for example, sounds great in theory - but the sort of sensible people who would respond well to that are not usually the sort of people who would be in danger of being banned in the first place.

What will happen is that trolls will take great glee in "stringing along" staff in such threads, modulating exactly how disruptive they are being in order to keep the staff running in circles discussing them and trying to split staff opinion in order to "divide and conquer".

And drama-queens will second-guess every single tiny decision that is made, and the staff will spend all their time defending their decisions (knowing that those defences themselves will also need defending and so on ad nauseum) rather than actually doing what they are supposed to be doing and running the place.

And it isn't just about bannings either - you'd get this on any decision; and staff would be both paralyzed into inaction and would burn out incredibly quickly.

So you have to have a compromise where staff are "left alone" to be able to make decisions without constantly being second guessed.

If you want an authoritarian community where some people are more "equal" than others, moderation is power rather than service, and secret reports are encouraged for secret forums and gossipy discussions then please proceed with a model that has been shown to fail more than once in this very same meta-group of potential members.

Agreed - but I think you are conflating secrecy with privacy.

An authoritarian stance desires secrecy, but that doesn't necessarily mean that privacy is always driven by an authoritarian stance.

What we should be doing in my opinion (and from discussions I think this matches the opinion of most of the staff) is working out a best-of-both-worlds compromise where we can have privacy for the sake of the smooth running of the board whilst protecting ourselves from creeping authoritarianism.

Like most things in life, it is not a black/white issue - but one of varying shades of grey.

The only way for the "community" to police the moderation and the moderated is for everything to be open. If someone is shy about being exposed as a reporter or a reported then they need to act in a manner that doesn't place them in the spotlight.

What we need is a compromise where the community in general can be satisfied without exposing the staff to undue harassment and while protecting the board from trolls.

Obviously some members of the community won't be satisfied unless everything is transparent and open - but I say that that is an unworkable and unrealistic expectation.

I wonder how many user notes I had at IIDB? I wonder how many of the very people here talked shit behind my back they couldn't or wouldn't support to my face? I still don't trust many of you because I know enough of what went on.

I don't know you - and I don't know whether you trust me or not.

Do we want a community of equals or do we want yet another format for wankers to satisfy their petite power trips?

We (well, "I" - since I can only speak for myself) want a community of equals, but with the realisation that compromises have to be made between openness and effectiveness. I realise that may not sit well with free-speech-trumps-all activists, but I consider myself a pragmatist rather than an idealist when it comes to such matters.

[Dreadnought]

So far I've been impressed by the patience of the admins and mods at this board. Rather than react prematurely to the disrupting posting habits of some members they've waited to see if they might improve. I'm in complete agreement with the proposal to let sanctions go public when the member in question asks for it, but to avoid call-out threads for every petty infraction (or whatever the correspondnig term here might be) I think that right should be limited to when someone is on the brink of being banned.

If such a request is made I suggest that rather than making complaints or internal discussions threads public, that one member of staff starts that thread with a brief resume of the history behind the situation.

I hope that we've all learned from the mistakes on other boards in that there is no reason to tighten up the rules just because some posters want to push them. If individual posters cause problems then those posters should be dealt with, not the community as a whole.

[Pavlov's Dog]

I can't see what is so wrong about the staff discussions about Mason. What it revealed to me was a group of people who were concerned for Mason as well as about his behaviour here and were bending over backwards to be fair to him.

You don't see anything wrong with people gossiping about his personal life and mental state, behind his back? Fuck, I hope they don't promote you to staff. They don't need another one.

PD: I would ask you what your objectives here are. Why are you personally here and what do you want to see? (Please try to answer seriously without spewing out insults.)

I want to see the thread where people were discussing me behind my back. My objective is to defend any accusations, such as ones about mental illnesses or the like, that were made about me.

Also, what are your objectives here? Why are you personally here and what do you want to see?

[Pavlov's Dog]

Mad power trip? Naw, I'm just mad, period. I've worked pretty hard to help build this forum and I don't like seeing people like Mason and PD taking a good shit on it along with crapping on the other people that happen to care about TR. So yeah, that makes me pretty mad because people are trying to destroy this place faster than we can build it. And yes, I take that personally and damn well intend to not let that happen. Of course, I realize that TR is not run by me, but is a republic governed by a group of staff. And to get things done requires a consensus of that group, plus taking into account the will of all members. So I'm just one voice expressing my disapproval of PDs behavior. And I will, as long as I'm here, do whatever is in my power (which is not really much power) to protect and defend the ideas that really constitute TR.

If you want to make this a better board, then why don't you spend some time worrying about your own behavior.

So I can speak for the staff to some extent because we spend a lot of time working out policies, rules, and the general philosophy of the board together. So I know a little bit about how the others think. I helped found this forum and I know a bit about the kind of forum we want.

Haha. There is no power trip going on here folks.

[Reverend Spanky]

So I'm just one voice expressing my disapproval of PDs behavior.


That's not the way you wrote it in the post I quoted, Rex. You're spinning the truth like a politician. You threatened him using 'we'. What is the rest of the readership supposed to think 'we' means, in this context?

You said, quite specifically: "You have no reason to mistrust me or any of the TR staff. But you are being warned that if you keep pushing and testing our resolve, you and Mason will have more in common. Why you should want to do that is beyond me. But that is your choice and we shall make our choice too."


So I can speak for the staff to some extent because we spend a lot of time working out policies, rules, and the general philosophy of the board together. So I know a little bit about how the others think. I helped found this forum and I know a bit about the kind of forum we want.

Wait, so are you speaking for yourself when you threaten Pav, or are you speaking for the staff?

I'd think if a realistic person were to worry about destroying all that 'hard work', that person wouldn't be worried about Mason or Pav. That person would be worried about what goes on behind closed doors, about what it takes to have a gossip thread in the mod's forum about you, and about how the everyday users are treated. That person would be worried about this board turning into an authoritarian hellhole.

What does my 'should we ban him?' thread look like, anyway?

[Jet Black]

What does my 'should we ban him?' thread look like, anyway?

I don't think you've been exciting enough to have one :)

[DMB]

I can't see what is so wrong about the staff discussions about Mason. What it revealed to me was a group of people who were concerned for Mason as well as about his behaviour here and were bending over backwards to be fair to him.

You don't see anything wrong with people gossiping about his personal life and mental state, behind his back? Fuck, I hope they don't promote you to staff. They don't need another one.

It isn't gossiping, it's trying to do the best for him. On its own, his behaviour here has been disruptive enough for consideration of an outright ban to be justified. Awareness of his youth the fact that he may be having a bad time can help to cut him some slack. In any firm, in any school, people who are running things may need to have discussions of this sort when it comes to disciplinary procedures. It's only "gossip" if they're just doing it casually to blow off steam. It's not gossip in the context of discipline. I find it encouraging that Mason is seen by the staff as a person, and not just a problem.

I don't want to be "promoted" to the staff. And I don't see it as a promotion.

PD: I would ask you what your objectives here are. Why are you personally here and what do you want to see? (Please try to answer seriously without spewing out insults.)

I want to see the thread where people were discussing me behind my back. My objective is to defend any accusations, such as ones about mental illnesses or the like, that were made about me.

You haven't really answered the question. That may be a short-term objective, but what do you hope to get out of this board?

Also, what are your objectives here? Why are you personally here and what do you want to see?

I am here because I find a lot, but not all, of RnR boring. This board seems to be providing something a bit different and more satisfying for me. I wouldn't go back to IIDB; the screw there was being tightened all the time, and they have surpassed themselves with their Orwellian nonsense.

I would like to see TR develop as a friendly, civilised place where we can hang out with internet friends and have both serious discussions that are held to a reasonably high standard and be a bit more relaxed when we feel like it. I would like to see it offering support to people who are struggling with their beliefs on in their personal life. I would like the predominant atmosphere to be one of good will.

TR was set up as a moderated board. It is important that there be safeguards to avoid its degenerating into any sort of oligarchy or dictatorship. The fact that mods/admins can be recalled by popular vote and the fact that issues can be chewed over here in TH do make the threat less credible.

At the moment, there is a slow struggle to build the board to something that will run satisfactorily. That's why this forum is so important. We can all contribute here to try to make something good.

[Preno]

If someone is incapable of making their accusation against another member in public, they make it in the first place. It's very simple. The only reason for making the complaint private is if its subject holds a position of power over the complainee. If you are making a complaint against another member, you should take on the responsibility that goes with it and be willing to attach your name to it. It's not like the subject matter of the complaint is actually private - everyone can see and judge the poster's behaviour for themselves. Analogies with doctors and "private information" are completely misplaced here.
Having an open discussion with someone who is in danger of being banned in order to sort out the problem, for example, sounds great in theory - but the sort of sensible people who would respond well to that are not usually the sort of people who would be in danger of being banned in the first place.

What will happen is that trolls will take great glee in "stringing along" staff in such threads, modulating exactly how disruptive they are being in order to keep the staff running in circles discussing them and trying to split staff opinion in order to "divide and conquer".

And drama-queens will second-guess every single tiny decision that is made, and the staff will spend all their time defending their decisions (knowing that those defences themselves will also need defending and so on ad nauseum) rather than actually doing what they are supposed to be doing and running the place.Possibly, but how is this relevant? You wouldn't have to answer every single objection raised. But the membership will of course be able to see whether you answered the valid ones.
Now, Mason admitted that he was here for the sole purpose of trolling. No rational person would think that that is normal behavior.No rational person would think that it is a sign of mental problems.
But you are being warned that if you keep pushing and testing our resolve, you and Mason will have more in common.Hahahahahahahaha

Serious question, can any random mod make a "warning" like that to a user, especially if he is quite possibly making it in response to an offensive comment from that user?
The power has gone to your head Rex. It didn't take long.

[...]

The funny part is when you get around to making threats toward Pav, you adopt first person plural so that it isn't just Rex making idle threats, but the whole mod team.This. Tbh, I think most of the mods/admins here are reasonable folks, but Rex's MO is frankly a turn off.

[Rathpig]

Ok, let me take another approach here to make my point:

If even a single person in the exposed Mason thread had called on the others to deal with the issue rather than play internet psychiatrist, I think I could have recognized the difference between "secrecy" and "privacy". But obviously lots of shit was posted because it was assumed "secret".

Isn't this exactly what happened at IIDB and exactly why so many people went ape-shit when their secret threads were exposed?

With power comes responsibility. Not a single person on staff told Rex T to stow his claims of Mason's "mental illness" - not a single fucking person. This is very telling. I understand the maternal pondering of some of the other staff. That is their nature it seems. perhaps they should have been told to stow the Oprahism also.

I see no balance on the staff. You guys appear too inbred.

Rather than ban Pavlov's Dog, I suggest you make him a moderator.



(And in full disclosure, I'm not his cheerleader. We are not internet-pals.)

[Christina]

Serious question, can any random mod make a "warning" like that to a user, especially if he is quite possibly making it in response to an offensive comment from that user?

I think that this is something that needs to be addressed. There should be no confusion about whether we're speaking officially for the staff, speaking as a single mod, or speaking as a regular member.

[rigorist]

Ok, let me take another approach here to make my point:

If even a single person in the exposed Mason thread had called on the others to deal with the issue rather than play internet psychiatrist, I think I could have recognized the difference between "secrecy" and "privacy". But obviously lots of shit was posted because it was assumed "secret".

Isn't this exactly what happened at IIDB and exactly why so many people went ape-shit when their secret threads were exposed?

With power comes responsibility. Not a single person on staff told Rex T to stow his claims of Mason's "mental illness" - not a single fucking person. This is very telling. I understand the maternal pondering of some of the other staff. That is their nature it seems. perhaps they should have been told to stow the Oprahism also.

I see no balance on the staff. You guys appear too inbred.

Rather than ban Pavlov's Dog, I suggest you make him a moderator.



(And in full disclosure, I'm not his cheerleader. We are not internet-pals.)

The Flying Fickle Finger of Fate appears to have landed on Rathpig.

[Pavlov's Dog]

It isn't gossiping, it's trying to do the best for him.

Yes it is. If there is no substantive discussion about his mental issues, and just blanket accusations that he has mental issues, that is textbook gossiping. Did you even read all the posts? Did you see RexT's post, that no other staff member called him on, about Mason's mental health? Are you seriously trying to tell me that was somehow to help Mason?

It's only "gossip" if they're just doing it casually to blow off steam.

I am glad you finally realized that it was gossiping.

You haven't really answered the question. That may be a short-term objective, but what do you hope to get out of this board?

Nothing really. The same as it is at every discussion board I have ever been a member of: Discussion. And who the fuck are you to question me? You are not staff, or are you their secret gestapo? Do you question all the users in this way?

[Pavlov's Dog]

Rather than ban Pavlov's Dog, I suggest you make him a moderator.



(And in full disclosure, I'm not his cheerleader. We are not internet-pals.)

Me and rathpig go at it pretty heavy some time, and I am not his internet pal, but I do respect him in a lot of ways. I wouldn't have the time or patience to be a moderator here, but I think rathpig would make a fine moderator, and actually offer a diverse opinion.

[mac_philo]

Intentions have exactly nothing to do with whether it was gossiping. Unqualified and marginally informed staff attempting to analyze someone's mental state and home life in private is gossip. That part of the discussion deals with patently insincere IRC nonsense brought into the echo chamber by a credulous staff member as something to factor into the mental health assesment shows that it is not just regular gossip, but ridiculous, uber-gossip.

Splitting threads and just talking about Mason in terms of trolling rules is boring. Gossip and analysis is interesting.

In fact intentions have nothing to do with any criticism I've seen from myself, PD, Rathpig, or anyone else. The problem is holding private discussions with a certain sort of content. The intentions of the participants is irrelevant---let's just stipulate that no staff member will ever have a single intention that is not pure, selfless, and benevolent. It doesn't matter at all, and doesn't answer a single criticism that has actually been articulated.

[laughing dog]

It's only "gossip" if they're just doing it casually to blow off steam.

I am glad you finally realized that it was gossiping. Since some of the alleged "gossip" was not about blowing off steam, your conclusion is invalid.

[laughing dog]

Intentions have exactly nothing to do with whether it was gossiping. Unqualified and marginally informed staff attempting to analyze someone's mental state and home life in private is gossip. That is your definition of gossip, not the world's.

That part of the discussion deals with patently insincere IRC nonsense brought into the echo chamber by a credulous staff member as something to factor into the mental health assesment shows that it is not just regular gossip, but ridiculous, uber-gossip. What this shows is that someone is misrepresenting reality and drawing nonsense conclusions to further a personal agenda.

[mac_philo]

What is my personal agenda?

If it has been uncovered in the private forum, please post it here.

Finally, if that does not qualify as gossip, please present an argument that it doesn't. If I convene a group of persons you are acquainted with, who have no specialized training, and are in possession of woefully incomplete information, to privately assess *your* family relations and mental state, over something of extremely low stakes importance, you would not call that gossip? I would call it a paradigm case.

Does the rest of the staff agree, this wouldn't be gossip if done to them?

[laughing dog]

With power comes responsibility. Not a single person on staff told Rex T to stow his claims of Mason's "mental illness" - not a single fucking person. What also seems to be conveniently ignored the parsimonious retelling of the situation is that no one else mentioned it: it was ignored. It is quite possible that some people did not address it in that manner, because they were more concerned with the immediate issue of the possible suspension of a poster.


This is very telling. I understand the maternal pondering of some of the other staff. That is their nature it seems. perhaps they should have been told to stow the Oprahism also. I believe the notion of mitigating factors (age, and home life) is different than the ill-defined concept of "Oprahism".

[Pavlov's Dog]

It's only "gossip" if they're just doing it casually to blow off steam.

I am glad you finally realized that it was gossiping. Since some of the alleged "gossip" was not about blowing off steam, your conclusion is invalid.

Some of it obviously was. What do you call RexT's comment about mental illness? Is RexT a psychologist? Did RexT get into the specifics of Mason's problem? Was there a detailed discussion of it? No, it was fucking gossip.

[laughing dog]

Finally, if that does not qualify as gossip, please present an argument that it doesn't. If I convene a group of persons you are acquainted with, who have no specialized training, and are in possession of woefully incomplete information, to privately assess *your* family relations and mental state, over something of extremely low stakes importance, you would not call that gossip? I would call it a paradigm case.

Does the rest of the staff agree, this wouldn't be gossip if done to them? Since your case does not accurately represent what happened (wtf is woefully incomplete information - the poster is on record about the quality of his home life), it is entirely possible to answer yes without being inconsistent.

[laughing dog]

Some of it obviously was. What do you call RexT's comment about mental illness? Is RexT a psychologist? Did RexT get into the specifics of Mason's problem? Was their a detailed discussion of it? No, it was fucking gossip. Did you notice that RexT's comment was ignored? At the time, I thought it was a little over the top, but I was more concerned with the immediate issue of the possible suspension of a poster.

[VoxRat]

Rather than ban Pavlov's Dog, I suggest you make him a moderator.



(And in full disclosure, I'm not his cheerleader. We are not internet-pals.)

Me and rathpig go at it pretty heavy some time, and I am not his internet pal, but I do respect him in a lot of ways. I wouldn't have the time or patience to be a moderator here, but I think rathpig would make a fine moderator, and actually offer a diverse opinion.Well, there's a problem.

PD (and others) nominate RathPig.
RathPig declines.
RathPig (any others?) nominates PD.
PD declines.

And somehow this "lack of diversity" is the fault of ... whom?

[mac_philo]

Here we go again with 'the poster is on record.' That is precisely the same locution you yourself used in regards to his blackouts.

Your engagement with me seems to have two aspects:
1)I have a personal agenda.
2)I am wrong.

Myself and perhaps others would find your participation more enlightening if you supplemented that with:
1a)What is my personal agenda?
2b)What exactly is wrong with that gloss of the events as a general description?

Yes, the IRC logs were discounted. What the hell is staff doing poring over IRC logs in private anyway?

[laughing dog]

1a)What is my personal agenda?
Forgive me if my memory is faulty, but are you not on record prior to this drama for openness in these types of decisions?


2b)What exactly is wrong with that gloss of the events as a general description? That information was "woefully inadequate".



Yes, the IRC logs were discounted. What the hell is staff doing poring over nonrelated IRC logs in private anyway? I know what I have read - I poured over nothing. I witnessed his statements. And, I have read enough of Mason's posts over the years to have witnessed and recalled his portrayal of his home life. I don't think anyone poured of logs of anything - in that instance, the mod recalled the conversation in which she had participated, and found it on the IRC. BTW - BL has apologized for that.

[laughing dog]

PD (and others) nominate RathPig.
RathPig declines.
RathPig (any others?) nominates PD.
PD declines.

And somehow this "lack of diversity" is the fault of ... whom? I think someone like rigorist would be good - although he does have some IIDB "taint" attached to him. And, if people think we have too many mods, and if rigorist agrees to be a mod, I would happily step down so that there was no oversupply of mods.

[Christina]

Maybe I'm just mean, but I don't give a shit about his age or his personal problems (if he has any).

[mac_philo]

Forgive me if my memory is faulty, but are you not on record prior to this drama for openness in these types of decisions?

So that is my agenda?

Everyone here has an agenda, unless 'agenda' a pejorative that means 'out of line with majority staff opinion inherited from IIDB.'

Why haven't my opponents had their posts flagged with caveats about their agenda for non-openness? Because that's the standard?

The information for nonqualified personnel to judge his mental state was woefully inadequate. The information available to ban him for trolling was completely adequate. The problem is going with the former in private. You can do the former, but it must be in public. In any case the latter would have been completely sufficient---though more boring for everyone involved.

[Pavlov's Dog]

Rather than ban Pavlov's Dog, I suggest you make him a moderator.



(And in full disclosure, I'm not his cheerleader. We are not internet-pals.)

Me and rathpig go at it pretty heavy some time, and I am not his internet pal, but I do respect him in a lot of ways. I wouldn't have the time or patience to be a moderator here, but I think rathpig would make a fine moderator, and actually offer a diverse opinion.Well, there's a problem.

PD (and others) nominate RathPig.
RathPig declines.
RathPig (any others?) nominates PD.
PD declines.

And somehow this "lack of diversity" is the fault of ... whom?

There is no shot in hell of me being a moderator here, so let's not pretend like it is going to happen and me turning it down was the reason. That is just stupid. I was just trying to save a lot of trouble for this board by turning it down.

[laughing dog]

Everyone here has an agenda, unless 'agenda' a pejorative that means 'out of line with majority staff opinion inherited from IIDB.' I was not using the term as a pejorative.

The information for nonqualified personnel to judge his mental state was woefully inadequate. This is too vague to be useful. Mason's age and home life are established. If someone repeatedly posts that their home life is shitty, how would that be inadequate information.

You can do the former, but it must be in public. Must be in public? What if the person in question does not want it in public?


In any case the latter would have been completely sufficient---though more boring for everyone involved. We disagree. The issue of trolling was not an established fact, and I think mitigating factors should play a role in decision-making.

[Pavlov's Dog]

Did you notice that RexT's comment was ignored?

Yes, I did notice it was ignored. That was the fucking problem.

[laughing dog]

Did you notice that RexT's comment was ignored?

Yes, I did notice it was ignored. That was the fucking problem. On one hand it was, but don't you think it would have been a larger fucking problem if the rest of us had accepted that diagnosis and used it? In retrospect, I should have voiced my concern over that, but I was focused on dealing with the suspension issue. I honestly believe my colleagues were in the same frame of mind.

[Pavlov's Dog]

Well, I haven't seen it be dealt with yet. Or, if sending RexT in here threatening to ban me was his punishment, then I think you have a strange way of dealing with staff indiscretions here.

[mac_philo]

This is too vague to be useful. Mason's age and home life are established. If someone repeatedly posts that their home life is shitty, how would that be inadequate information.

Simple. Repeated posts on home life can esily be inadequate if the poster (an abstraction, not Mason) is a lying troll of dubious credibility, and the staff are text-monkeys, not psychiatrists or social workers.

That is one case among many where it shows the information inadequate for use in the conclave.

Must be in public? What if the person in question does not want it in public?

If they do not want their posts rationally assessed in public by a civil and reasonably intelligent group of freethinkers, they should not participate at the Republic of Freethought. These policies will be put into the rules you agree to upon joining. Your posts here will be challenged, and if you cannot take it, you need to change or post somewhere else. The intentions behind protecting sensitive posters are noble, but not worth their costs in requiring a private, IIDB-like structure.

We disagree. The issue of trolling was not an established fact, and I think mitigating factors should play a role in decision-making.

Mitigating factors should play a role, just not in the echo chamber.

By sufficient I should have clarified---sufficient to set a precedent that the troll rule here sets the bar very low, and will be enforced quickly.

[laughing dog]

Well, I haven't seen it be dealt with yet. Or, if sending RexT in here threatening to ban me was his punishment, then I think you have a strange way of dealing with staff indiscretions here. That would be unique method of dealing with staff indiscretions. At this time, such issues are addressed in private. Where to draw the line between private and public discussion is a debate that continues here. I wish we had these types of things all hashed out, but we don't. Not much of response, I realize, but it is the best I can do.

[Pavlov's Dog]

Well, since I don't trust this staff to deal with it properly in private, I will deal with it in public.

[VoxRat]

This is too vague to be useful. Mason's age and home life are established. If someone repeatedly posts that their home life is shitty, how would that be inadequate information.

Simple. Repeated posts on home life can esily be inadequate if the poster (an abstraction, not Mason) is a lying troll of dubious credibility, and the staff are text-monkeys, not psychiatrists or social workers.

That is one case among many where it shows the information inadequate for use in the conclave.

Must be in public? What if the person in question does not want it in public?

If they do not want their posts rationally assessed in public by a civil and reasonably intelligent group of freethinkers, they should not participate at the Republic of Freethought. These policies will be put into the rules you agree to upon joining.

We disagree. The issue of trolling was not an established fact, and I think mitigating factors should play a role in decision-making.

Mitigating factors should play a role, just not in the echo chamber.

By sufficient I should have clarified---sufficient to set a precedent that the troll rule here sets the bar very low, and will be enforced quickly.I'd like to nominate Mac Philo for Mod/Admin/Whatever?

[laughing dog]

Well, since I don't trust this staff to deal with it properly in private, I will deal with it in public. Fair enough. While I am not by nature an optimist, I am hopeful this incident will cause us to carefully and expeditiously examine our methods and protocols which will lead to a fair and appropriate process.

[DMB]

It isn't gossiping, it's trying to do the best for him.

Yes it is. If there is no substantive discussion about his mental issues, and just blanket accusations that he has mental issues, that is textbook gossiping. Did you even read all the posts? Did you see RexT's post, that no other staff member called him on, about Mason's mental health? Are you seriously trying to tell me that was somehow to help Mason?

It's only "gossip" if they're just doing it casually to blow off steam.

I am glad you finally realized that it was gossiping.

You haven't really answered the question. That may be a short-term objective, but what do you hope to get out of this board?

Nothing really. The same as it is at every discussion board I have ever been a member of: Discussion. And who the fuck are you to question me? You are not staff, or are you their secret gestapo? Do you question all the users in this way?

As far as I can tell from what has been posted, it was not an accusation that Mason might have mental issues; it was an attempt to find mitigation for his behaviour. There is no rule that one has to be a mental health expert just to raise this sort of thing in private. It's the sort of thing that teachers and managers do all the time. You are trying to paint a bit of good will in the worst possible light. And no, I don't accept that it was necessarily gossiping.

You and I are members in equal standing of this board. I can question you; you can question me. You did question me and I tried to give you an honest answer. The reason I asked that particular question was because I genuinely wondered what you thought you were doing here. It deosn't seem a very good fit for you. I wonder if you have any vision of what you would like this board to be. Do you want RnR2 for some reason?

[Pavlov's Dog]

Well, since I don't trust this staff to deal with it properly in private, I will deal with it in public. Fair enough. While I am not by nature an optimist, I am hopeful this incident will cause us to carefully and expeditiously examine our methods and protocols which will lead to a fair and appropriate process.

I hope so too, but the way the staff has rallied around to defend it, doesn't make me that hopeful. It would be helpful, to actually see the staff discussing it, but then you guys couldn't have your secrets.

[nygreenguy]

Jesus fucking christ.

When will the internet drama end?

Peoples attitudes here have shown WHY reported posts should NOT be made public. Its simply brings out the flaming trolls.

There is simply no reason to involve the person in question until it has even been decided there is a problem, or an infraction has occurred.

If a member has been banned, or suspended then I could understand releasing the results of the discussion, but even then it should be in a closed thread.

We have moderators and admins for a reason. We have them to deal with these situations so the board doesnt become a mess of bitching, whining, and other uncivilized behavior. This is the reason they are here, and they are chosen because they have demonstrated to the heads of the board that they are capable.

This is no way means that they should operate in secret. I do think that they should privately release, upon request, complaints to the person in question. But with this, the member in question should also not make a fool of themselves by releasing it publicly and starting a flame thread about it.

It would seem if we all would simply act in a more mature manner, none of this would be an issue. This is a discussion board, not a soap opera.

[mac_philo]

I hope so too, but the way the staff has rallied around to defend it, doesn't make me that hopeful. It would be helpful, to actually see the staff discussing it, but then you guys couldn't have your secrets.


We don't even see the private rallying.

Where are Pendaric and RBH? Am I to understand they think there is nothing to say in the Town Hall on these issues? They may be busy, but they've been posting on other topics.

Let's consider whether Talk Rational is developing a culture of privacy and hierarchy by looking at their post counts. This is not a personal attack on anyone, but interesting data involving two key IIDB admins that are in power here, yet not talking.

Pendaric
total number of posts: 465
total number of posts that are readable by mere users: 189
percentage of Pendaric's forum activity done in public: 41%

RBH
total number of posts: 389
total number of posts readable by mere users: 204
percentage of RBH's forum activity done in public: 52%

I think there is a very valid worry that TR will replicate IIDB's structural problems.

[Pavlov's Dog]

I hope so too, but the way the staff has rallied around to defend it, doesn't make me that hopeful. It would be helpful, to actually see the staff discussing it, but then you guys couldn't have your secrets.


We don't even see the private rallying.

Where are Pendaric and RBH? Am I to understand they think there is nothing to say in the Town Hall on these issues? They may be busy, but they've been posting on other topics.

Let's consider whether Talk Rational is developing a culture of privacy and heirarchy by looking at their post counts. This is not a personal attack on anyone, but interesting data involving two key IIDB admins that are in power here, yet not talking.

Pendaric
total number of posts: 465
total number of posts that are readable by mere users: 189
percentage of Pendaric's forum activity done in public: 41%

RBH
total number of posts: 389
total number of posts readable by mere users: 204
percentage of RBH's forum activity done in public: 52%

I think there is a very valid worry that TR will replicate IIDB's structural problems.

I love this guy. In a purely platonic way. I am sure he doesn't think much of me sometimes, but I think I might actually become a better person for him.

[Jet Black]

Well, since I don't trust this staff to deal with it properly in private, I will deal with it in public. Fair enough. While I am not by nature an optimist, I am hopeful this incident will cause us to carefully and expeditiously examine our methods and protocols which will lead to a fair and appropriate process.

I hope so too, but the way the staff has rallied around to defend it, doesn't make me that hopeful. It would be helpful, to actually see the staff discussing it, but then you guys couldn't have your secrets.

Well the staff as a whole have chosen to keep the staff forum private, and that's just the case whether you (or I) like it or not - it's a consensus decision. There are however things that I'm not happy with that I have seen here and elsewhere and some definite indicators of directions to move in. One thing for example is the nature of the discussion of members, particularly when serious consideration is being given to their banning/suspension.

[Jet Black]

I hope so too, but the way the staff has rallied around to defend it, doesn't make me that hopeful. It would be helpful, to actually see the staff discussing it, but then you guys couldn't have your secrets.


We don't even see the private rallying.

Where are Pendaric and RBH? Am I to understand they think there is nothing to say in the Town Hall on these issues? They may be busy, but they've been posting on other topics.

Let's consider whether Talk Rational is developing a culture of privacy and heirarchy by looking at their post counts. This is not a personal attack on anyone, but interesting data involving two key IIDB admins that are in power here, yet not talking.

Pendaric
total number of posts: 465
total number of posts that are readable by mere users: 189
percentage of Pendaric's forum activity done in public: 41%

RBH
total number of posts: 389
total number of posts readable by mere users: 204
percentage of RBH's forum activity done in public: 52%

I think there is a very valid worry that TR will replicate IIDB's structural problems.

to be fair, there is quite alot of discussion going on regarding the ombudsman and procedural issues the main essence of which ends up in the TH anyway. Remember the forum has been set up with a pretty complicated structure in the first place. Simple percentages aren't really the best indicator of the actions of those particular staff. I know you say that you don't mean those statistics as an attack on anyone, but I am not entirely sure what they are for, or what can really be drawn from them.

[nygreenguy]

We don't even see the private rallying.

Where are Pendaric and RBH? Am I to understand they think there is nothing to say in the Town Hall on these issues? They may be busy, but they've been posting on other topics.

Let's consider whether Talk Rational is developing a culture of privacy and hierarchy by looking at their post counts. This is not a personal attack on anyone, but interesting data involving two key IIDB admins that are in power here, yet not talking.


I think there is a very valid worry that TR will replicate IIDB's structural problems.

Are you serious?

So they like to talk in private? Who cares! Why is everyone so fricking paranoid? :dunno:

What if they are simply chatting? Or discussing possible board improvements? Or discussing why iidb blows? Or what they had for dinner?

As I said before, if people could actually handle the "behind the scenes" discussions a little more without getting all drama-mama perhaps they would be more public.

[Pavlov's Dog]

As far as I can tell from what has been posted, it was not an accusation that Mason might have mental issues;

Then you have reading comprehension problems. It was plain as a day.

You and I are members in equal standing of this board.

No we are not. That is a very naive way to look at our standing here.

I wonder if you have any vision of what you would like this board to be. Do you want RnR2 for some reason?

Nope. You aren't going to catch lightning in a bottle twice. I don't mind moderation. The only board I am a member of that has moderation as light as RnR is RnR. I don't like the group think from the staff. I don't like gossiping about users behind their back. That doesn't mean I want to turn this place into RnR.

[mac_philo]

They are to show what the currently silent tenured IIDB admins, including the former lead admin, do at TR.

It is my opinion that that discussion should be going on in pubilc, which is an elementary lesson from IIDB's demise.

[Pavlov's Dog]

We don't even see the private rallying.

Where are Pendaric and RBH? Am I to understand they think there is nothing to say in the Town Hall on these issues? They may be busy, but they've been posting on other topics.

Let's consider whether Talk Rational is developing a culture of privacy and hierarchy by looking at their post counts. This is not a personal attack on anyone, but interesting data involving two key IIDB admins that are in power here, yet not talking.


I think there is a very valid worry that TR will replicate IIDB's structural problems.

Are you serious?

So they like to talk in private? Who cares! Why is everyone so fricking paranoid? :dunno:

What if they are simply chatting? Or discussing possible board improvements? Or discussing why iidb blows? Or what they had for dinner?

As I said before, if people could actually handle the "behind the scenes" discussions a little more without getting all drama-mama perhaps they would be more public.

Are you serious? You think that this board should have a secret forum where only members of the special club can gossip about members behind their backs? Well, your opinion is noted. I don't see how you can be shocked that people disagree.

[Preno]

Well the staff as a whole have chosen to keep the staff forum private, and that's just the case whether you (or I) like it or notI was under the impression that the rat dude at the top of the page says this is a republic. :confused:

Btw, is it just me, or does it simply not make sense to say that the staff as a whole have arrived at a consensus decision, whether some staff members like it or not?

ETA: not that I have any particular gripe with you. At least I think I don't.

[Pavlov's Dog]

to be fair, there is quite alot of discussion going on regarding the ombudsman and procedural issues the main essence of which ends up in the TH anyway.

Why exactly, can't these discussion be had in public?

[Jet Black]

Well the staff as a whole have chosen to keep the staff forum private, and that's just the case whether you (or I) like it or notI was under the impression that the rat dude at the top of the page says this is a republic. :confused:

Btw, is it just me, or does it simply not make sense to say that the staff as a whole have arrived at a consensus decision, whether some staff members like it or not?

ETA: not that I have any particular gripe with you. At least I think I don't.

well th US has Bush as president whether many of the electorate like it or not. The point is that some staff are opposed to the consensus decision, either wholly or in part. For example I still have concerns with the privacy issues and quite alot of my proposals are finding ways to make things more open. I doubt that I could seriously push to open the staff forum entirely, so I am looking to see what needs to be made open and how we can do that.

[RexT]

With power comes responsibility. Not a single person on staff told Rex T to stow his claims of Mason's "mental illness" - not a single fucking person.

*First, just to be clear, I'm speaking just as member here like anyone esle and not officially as a staff member.*

Here's the problem Rathpig. I don't appreciate you misquoting the Mason thread, especially misquoting what I said, and then joining PD's delusions and rantings. You need to go back to that thread and reread it. After you spot your egregious mistake and apologize, we might start to have an intelligent conversation.

Look at what you have in quotes. It says, and I quote, "mental illness". Now, lets look at what I actually said, and I quote. "Mason has some sort of mental issues". Look at it closely Rathpig because there is a huge difference between what you falsely quote me as saying and you straw man interpretation and what I actually said.

If I had said what you calim, "mental illness", then yes, I would have been acting as a psychologist. But I didn't really say that did I rathpig? I said "mental issues", and that isn't a professional term at all is it? It's a lay term that could mean almost anything from a head ache to an attitude problem, to anger problems, you name it. Isn't that right Rathpig? And it doesn't require someone to be a psychologist to recognize these kinds of mental issues, does it? And since everyone knows damn well that I'm not a psychologist and wasn't using professional terms as if I were diagnosing Mason but a lay person using a lay term, no rational person would interpret what I said the way PD and you are interpreting it. Isn't that right Rathpig?

So now having seen your egregious mistake, and the stress it has unduly caused me, I want a retraction Rathpig or I want you and PD to leave and not come back. I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, human error being what it is, you simply must have forgot what I actually said, and misquoted it from memory. But seeing it now here before your eyes, further continuance of your misquoting and misinterpretation is unacceptable.

If I've done something wrong, performed my duties poorly or whatever, then I apologize and I will improve myself. But what you and PD are doing is wrong and needs to end now.

[nygreenguy]

You think that this board should have a secret forum where only members of the special club can gossip about members behind their backs? Yeah, i do. Im a TA for a class right now. We discuss the students and their behaviors all the time. It allows us to be honest about what we think is going on without having to worry about hurting anyones feelings or creating an argument. Its simply the way the world works.

If we allowed every student to attend these meetings, it would make it harder to be honest. Some people, when you are honest to them, think they are being attacked. And because of this, nothing can get resolved. When a person becomes defensive, rationality goes out the window.

So the private discussions allow the leaders to form a "plan of attack" w/o having to worry about the person in question going ape-shit.

PD, you have been quite hostile over all of this, and to be honest I can sort of understand. But do you honestly think having a thread about every single reported post, every single complain will really add anything positive to this board? You have become very defensive over this (somewhat understandably) and this goes to show WHY it should remain private. We have 4-5 pages of everyone bitching, name calling, etc... but no resolution.

Its clear that a public forum for complaints would only "feed the fire" as opposed to settling anything.

[Pavlov's Dog]

Well the staff as a whole have chosen to keep the staff forum private, and that's just the case whether you (or I) like it or notI was under the impression that the rat dude at the top of the page says this is a republic. :confused:

Btw, is it just me, or does it simply not make sense to say that the staff as a whole have arrived at a consensus decision, whether some staff members like it or not?

ETA: not that I have any particular gripe with you. At least I think I don't.

well th US has Bush as president whether many of the electorate like it or not. The point is that some staff are opposed to the consensus decision, either wholly or in part. For example I still have concerns with the privacy issues and quite alot of my proposals are finding ways to make things more open. I doubt that I could seriously push to open the staff forum entirely, so I am looking to see what needs to be made open and how we can do that.

How about opening up the thread about me? Is there something actionable in there? Is that why? I promise not to sue.

[Preno]

well th US has Bush as president whether many of the electorate like it or not.Yeah, but you wouldn't say that the whole of America has reached a consensus and elected him. But that's more of a verbal issue than anything else.
For example I still have concerns with the privacy issues and quite alot of my proposals are finding ways to make things more open. I doubt that I could seriously push to open the staff forum entirely, so I am looking to see what needs to be made open and how we can do that.Yeah, I know you in particular support more openness.

[Pavlov's Dog]

Yeah, i do. Im a TA for a class right now. We discuss the students and their behaviors all the time. It allows us to be honest about what we think is going on without having to worry about hurting anyones feelings or creating an argument. Its simply the way the world works.

We are not your students or the students of the staff here.

If we allowed every student to attend these meetings, it would make it harder to be honest. Some people, when you are honest to them, think they are being attacked. And because of this, nothing can get resolved. When a person becomes defensive, rationality goes out the window.

Bullshit. If you can't be honest to a person to their face, then you probably shouldn't be in a position like admin or moderator.

PD, you have been quite hostile over all of this, and to be honest I can sort of understand. But do you honestly think having a thread about every single reported post, every single complain will really add anything positive to this board?

If you recall, I wasn't for having every complaint necessarily be out in the open. I was for having a whistleblower clause allowing the staff to expose gossipy and other inappropriate posts. But after seeing what happened to Mason, and finding out there is a similar thread about me, I realize that staff can't be trusted with it.

PD, you have been quite hostile over all of this, and to be honest I can sort of understand. But do you honestly think having a thread about every single reported post, every single complain will really add anything positive to this board? You have become very defensive over this (somewhat understandably) and this goes to show WHY it should remain private. We have 4-5 pages of everyone bitching, name calling, etc... but no resolution.

Its clear that a public forum for complaints would only "feed the fire" as opposed to settling anything.

Then maybe staff shouldn't have told me there was a similar thread about me, after they got busted with Mason's thread.

[Pavlov's Dog]

well th US has Bush as president whether many of the electorate like it or not.

I don't think you want to model this place, after the failings of the US political system, do you?

[Jet Black]

well th US has Bush as president whether many of the electorate like it or not.

I don't think you want to model this place, after the failings of the US political system, do you?

well all systems with an element of democracy have someone in charge that a good portion of the electorate don't like or policies that many oppose. I could have picked Australia for all the difference it would have made. but no, I don't really want to inherit the failings of other systems which is why my intention is to avoid them where possible and seek ways of easing the problems where it is not.

[Ray Moscow]

PD: But after seeing what happened to Mason, and finding out there is a similar thread about me, I realize that staff can't be trusted with it.

This is a bit off-topic, but why do you participate on a forum in which you believe the staff cannot be trusted? Surely you don't think you're raising that trust level by insulting them?

AFAIK, none of us have "rights" here beyond what the forum owner grants, anyway -- and this granting is delegated to forum management. If forum management pisses you off or is (IYO) irredeemably bad, all you can do is leave. (As happened for many at IIDB)

Every board that I've ever been on had a private management forum. That's just how these things work.

[David B]

I was under the impression that the rat dude at the top of the page says this is a republic. :confused:

Btw, is it just me, or does it simply not make sense to say that the staff as a whole have arrived at a consensus decision, whether some staff members like it or not?

ETA: not that I have any particular gripe with you. At least I think I don't.

well th US has Bush as president whether many of the electorate like it or not. The point is that some staff are opposed to the consensus decision, either wholly or in part. For example I still have concerns with the privacy issues and quite alot of my proposals are finding ways to make things more open. I doubt that I could seriously push to open the staff forum entirely, so I am looking to see what needs to be made open and how we can do that.

How about opening up the thread about me? Is there something actionable in there? Is that why? I promise not to sue.

Well there is an issue of whether it would infringe the privacy of those who made posts with the expectation of privacy.

I seem to remember Stopper, at RnR, being very upset when it was suggested that an invisible forum in which she had posted being made public retrospectively.

There is progress being made to more openness in some ways.

For instance, anyone making a report can see the discussion which follows.

David B

[Ian Nerr]

AFAIK, none of us have "rights" here beyond what the forum owner grants, anyway -- and this granting is delegated to forum management. If forum management pisses you off or is (IYO) irredeemably bad, all you can do is leave. (As happened for many at IIDB)

Every board that I've ever been on had a private management forum. That's just how these things work.

Did you cut and paste that off IIDB somewhere?

[Ray Moscow]

AFAIK, none of us have "rights" here beyond what the forum owner grants, anyway -- and this granting is delegated to forum management. If forum management pisses you off or is (IYO) irredeemably bad, all you can do is leave. (As happened for many at IIDB)

Every board that I've ever been on had a private management forum. That's just how these things work.

Did you cut and paste that off IIDB somewhere?

Ha! No, I'm not defending the board owners over there. People had every right to be pissed off -- and leave.

I think we forget that the board owner can just turn the damn thing off if he/she wants. AFAIK, there is no "right" of access to any freebie forum.

We participate because we have some level of trust for the people running the thing.

[Pavlov's Dog]

Well there is an issue of whether it would infringe the privacy of those who made posts with the expectation of privacy.

I seem to remember Stopper, at RnR, being very upset when it was suggested that an invisible forum in which she had posted being made public retrospectively.

Fuck Stopper. She is not staff. I want my thread exposed. Or at least let the cowards like Stopper say who they are. That is some progress. Which one of the cowards are afraid to have my gossip thread exposed?

[Occam's Aftershave]

Well there is an issue of whether it would infringe the privacy of those who made posts with the expectation of privacy.

I seem to remember Stopper, at RnR, being very upset when it was suggested that an invisible forum in which she had posted being made public retrospectively.

Fuck Stopper. She is not staff. I want my thread exposed. Or at least let the cowards like Stopper say who they are. That is some progress. Which one of the cowards are afraid to have my gossip thread exposed?
Fuck you. You're not staff either. And what you bawl for in life and what you get are sometimes two different things.

You seem to forget that posting on a private BB is a privilege, not a right. If you don't like the rules, there are two things productive things you can do:

1. Make a compelling argument for your case and persuade enough people to back you that can convince board management to change policy.

2. Leave.

Unfortunately you've chosen option 3, whine like a shitty-diapered baby and think that will get you your way. Might work with your homeboys at RnR, ain't gonna work here.

[VoxRat]

...This is a bit off-topic, but why do you participate on a forum in which you believe the staff cannot be trusted? ...
Or to put it another way:
Why don't you just stay at talkrational RnR with the rest of the cool kids clique and stop trolling this forum? (http://www.rantsnraves.org/showthread.php?p=298341#post298341)

[RexT]

I WANT MY THREAD EXPOSED!!!
I WANT MY THREAD EXPOSED!!!
I WANT MY GODDAMN THREAD EXPOSED!!!

Hows that for self-exposure folks? It exposes a lot from where I stand.

And I thought Mason was the immature one, but Mason is truly like a wise old man compared to this one.

Oh, an please no one criticize me.

[mac_philo]

Well there is an issue of whether it would infringe the privacy of those who made posts with the expectation of privacy.

To be clear, if that is a valid consideration, it is only if PD's thread predates this policy directive (http://www.talkrational.org/showpost.php?p=21319&postcount=4).

I don't think it is valid in any case, but everyone must be on the same page that it will never be valid in the future.

Such expectations of privacy henceforth are personal idiosyncrasies stemming from ignorance of explicit policy and will never again be a valid consideration.

[RexT]

Hey, are there any mods is this damn place, I need to report an underexposed THREAD.

[RexT]

Nope, no mods!

[Pavlov's Dog]

]

This is a bit off-topic, but why do you participate on a forum in which you believe the staff cannot be trusted? Surely you don't think you're raising that trust level by insulting them?

Maybe I will be gone shortly, but things about how this place is run are already changing. So, if it helps the comrades I leave behind, then that is something. Oh, and I don't distrust all staff. I am just a little disappointed in some of them, and don't trust them in the way they are working now. But like I said, there seems to be some discussion about things changing. Maybe it will be after I am gone, maybe not.

AFAIK, none of us have "rights" here beyond what the forum owner grants, anyway -- and this granting is delegated to forum management. If forum management pisses you off or is (IYO) irredeemably bad, all you can do is leave. (As happened for many at IIDB)

Every board that I've ever been on had a private management forum. That's just how these things work.

If that is the way they are going to run the place, then let them say it. So, far they don't particularly agree with you.

[Monad]

Every board that I've ever been on had a private management forum. That's just how these things work.

I thought that too. Doesn't RnR have one too? Otherwise how do mods ever decide on any mod decisions or do they just act as individuals without discussion or seeking consensus first?

[Reverend Spanky]

Nope, no mods!

Uncomfortable questions suck.

So were you speaking for yourself when you threatened Pav, or were you speaking for the staff?

[Pavlov's Dog]

Every board that I've ever been on had a private management forum. That's just how these things work.

I thought that too. Doesn't RnR have one too? Otherwise how do mods ever decide on any mod decisions or do they just act as individuals without discussion or seeking consensus first?

No RnR doesn't. The discussions happen out in the open. It works like a charm. Of course Matt doesn't have as big of an ego, as some of the staff here. Also, the users at RnR keep the rest of the staff pretty grounded.

[Preno]

Well there is an issue of whether it would infringe the privacy of those who made posts with the expectation of privacy.Ok, so how about every person who would not like to make their posts in that thread public says so, and the thread is posted without those bits?
Every board that I've ever been on had a private management forum.That's not true, actually.

And as much as some people might dislike or simply want something different from RnR's (lack of) moderation, I don't think the lack of a private management forum had any negative influence on it.

[laughing dog]

And as much as some people might dislike or simply want something different from RnR's (lack of) moderation, I don't think the lack of a private management forum had any negative influence on it. RnR is not a very good example, since only spamming is actionable.

[Jet Black]

I split the off topic insults to here (http://talkrational.org/showthread.php?t=1085) and locked it.

JB, Admin

[mac_philo]

That's not quite right, there have been policy discussions and votes on civility rules, qualifications for voting rights, expelling trolls, and many other things outside of spamming.

One must be careful to distinguish RnR as an open model of governance from RnR as lacking almost any constraints on what you can post. I want the former and certainly not the latter. Hell, I'm probably the only person participating in this conversation who actively defended IIDB's rule against calling a troll a troll! (Well, I at least attacked the arguments I saw against that policy as uncompelling.)

Of course you may have a point about the vast divide between the two forums, but it needs to be carefully articulated.

I think appealing to RnR as a measuring stick in this debate generates more heat than light, but if someone needs an example of open deliberation, it is one.

[Occam's Aftershave]

That's not quite right, there have been policy discussions and votes on civility rules, qualifications for voting rights, expelling trolls, and many other things outside of spamming.

One must be careful to distinguish RnR as an open model of governance from RnR as lacking almost any constraints on what you can post.

Of course you may have a point about the vast divide between the two forums, but it needs to be carefully articulated
The problem with a completely open forum like RnR is that there will always be people who abuse the open posting privilege. It's that "your first amendment rights don't let you yell FIRE in a crowded theater" sort of thing. That's why there needs to be some formal rules about disruptive trolling behavior (as is PD's favorite pastime) and moderation to enforce them.

PD of course has the right to defend himself, but the whole process should be private as to not cause further board disruption IMHO.

[Pavlov's Dog]

That's not quite right, there have been policy discussions and votes on civility rules, qualifications for voting rights, expelling trolls, and many other things outside of spamming.

One must be careful to distinguish RnR as an open model of governance from RnR as lacking almost any constraints on what you can post.

Of course you may have a point about the vast divide between the two forums, but it needs to be carefully articulated
The problem with a completely open forum like RnR is that there will always be people who abuse the open posting privilege. It's that "your first amendment rights don't let you yell FIRE in a crowded theater" sort of thing. That's why there needs to be some formal rules about disruptive trolling behavior (as is PD's favorite pastime) and moderation to enforce them.

PD of course has the right to defend himself, but the whole process should be private as to not cause further board disruption IMHO.

Fuck you. You are going to come in here with a handful of posts and call me a troll? You have some fucking nerve.

[mac_philo]

The problem with a completely open forum like RnR is that there will always be people who abuse the open posting privilege. It's that "your first amendment rights don't let you yell FIRE in a crowded theater" sort of thing. That's why there needs to be some formal rules about disruptive trolling behavior (as is PD's favorite pastime) and moderation to enforce them.

Yes, I agree 100%. Everyone agrees. Hopefully soon this point will stop being raised, because all are on the same page, and nobody wants to replicate RnR. Continually bringing up some rivalry or difference between the forums doesn't move the real issues forward. (Of course all are free to raise the point as often as they wish.)

PD of course has the right to defend himself, but the whole process should be private as to not cause further board disruption IMHO.

This in no way follows from the above.

[Preno]

And as much as some people might dislike or simply want something different from RnR's (lack of) moderation, I don't think the lack of a private management forum had any negative influence on it. RnR is not a very good example, since only spamming is actionable.What mac_philo said.

Btw, the major argument against making the discussions public has been privacy and generally some stuff about how specific posters should not be discussed in public for some reason or other. So can some mod/admin please tell me roughly how many of the threads in the staff forum are of this character, and how many are general policy discussions? I seem to recall someone (Christina?) saying that there is a significant proportion of the latter.

Because, you know, I don't think anyone has so far presented any argument against discussing policy in public. (Correct me if I'm wrong.)
The problem with a completely open forum like RnR is that there will always be people who abuse the open posting privilege. It's that "your first amendment rights don't let you yell FIRE in a crowded theater" sort of thing. That's why there needs to be some formal rules about disruptive trolling behavior (as is PD's favorite pastime) and moderation to enforce them.Yes. Too bad no-one was talking about any open posting privilege, but rather about moderation and policy discussions being done in the open.
the whole process should be private as to not cause further board disruption IMHO.This is pure IIDB talk, just look at it and compare it. And that's the first and only time I've used the comparison either here or on RnR. (I don't do the whole "TR = IIDB" thing.)

[Christina]

I don't recall saying that Preno, because I remember going in to try to categorize threads to count them to satisfy my own curiosity but getting interrupted and not getting back to it. If you can find it in context I'll certainly try to explain it, though.

[Pavlov's Dog]

So there are more threads discussing individual users, than there are discussing general policy, or are you saying you don't know which there are more of?

[Preno]

I don't recall saying that Preno, because I remember going in to try to categorize threads to count them to satisfy my own curiosity but gettin