Question for non-mods/admins

[Jet Black]

Just as a matter of interest, for those who aren't mods or admins, what do you think we talk about in private fora and what do you assume the structure is like? what do you think goes on and so on? No joke posts please, I am trying to get a serious handle on things here so we don't mess things up in the long run.

I found that after I resigned as Admin at IIDB how different my perception was, principally because I couldn't see what was going on behind the scenes, and really started to understand why a "them and us" mentality came to exist, and it is something I think we need to avoid.

cheers

JB

[DMB]

I assume quite a bit of it is technical help to one another and some of it would be on borderline judgements about posts/posters. I would also expect a bit of personal joshing/friendship and a bit of bitching about individual posters who aren't staff.

There is always going to be an element of them and us. I don't see how it can be avoided. I sort of assume it is like what I experienced many years ago when I was at school and became a prefect. Or what is what like in the staff common room when I was a teacher. (Although that latter experience was more varied.)

I would hate to deprive staff of a private forum on the grounds of democracy/transparency. I think it is needed for efficient functioning, even though I shall never be in it and therefore party to the wild raves that go on there.

[Pavlov's Dog]

I assume there is some gossip about posters that cannot access the forum. I am sure someone will chastise them after a few posts and it will stop, but it will pop back up again the next time. It is just human nature.

I am sure there are discussions about "problem posters" and what should be done about them. I am sure there are some insults slung around, and then someone will chastise them and it will stop, but it will pop back up again the next time.

[Garnet]

I don't know and I honestly don't care. I'm more concerned about actions that are taken rather than the discussions that lead to those actions. As long as there are mechanisms in place to put more controversial actions out on the floor so that cat can sniff them, I'm satisfied.

[Flying Buttress]

Probably debate about 'what do you make of so-and-so's diatribe about.....' 'let's wait and see what happens next', as well as gossip about hated members from other forums - the historical antecedents to the creation of this board.

Maybe also some talk about personal stuff in your own lives, that you don't want out for the whole world to see.

[Gojira]

Well, I'd expect the Admins and Mods to be discussing peoples posts - on both a "what do we need to do about this post?" and a "lol at this rubbish" basis.

I'd be somewhat surprised if there weren't occasional "what do we do about so and so" type threads too.

There certainly needs to be a private area for this - if there isn't it'll just happen in PM or even e-mail.

So long as people are vaguely reasonable, it will work.

If not, well I joined RnR after most of the IIDB stuff happened, and I was never at IIDB, but it seems obvious to me that if people don't like what is happening in your sandbox, they'll go somewhere else.

What I've seen here so far looks good though :)

[umop apisdn w,I]

There is a similar discussion to this going on in the staff forum at the moment, and I think what I posted there is worth repeating here:

This is something I've been in two minds about for a while.

After the IIDebacle, I definitely wanted more openness - and I still do. After talking to Tom (Viscous Memories) I agreed that complete openness was the way to go.

Unfortunately, the experience at RnR has soured that a little. I still think that in an ideal world complete openness should be the default - but in the real world, with real twats and trolls, complete openness just leads to every decision and every discussion being second-guessed and turned into net-drama. It is also apparent from the RnR experience that even when everything is supposed to be done openly it still isn't. It just means that things are arranged and discussed via PM/IM/chat conversations.

The irony in that situation being that the sort of people who thrive on net-drama and who tend to be suspicious of any kind of private staff area are often suspicious because they themselves spend a lot of time gossiping and "plotting" in private via those same PM/IM/chat channels and project their own tendencies onto staff...

I like to see some kind of compromise solution (e.g. a staff forum that is open for viewing but not open for posting by anyone other than staff). That can still cause unnecessary drama, though, so it would need to be carefully considered before we rush into anything.

To expand on that, I'd like to see most staff discussions about specifics (reported posts and dealing with members' complaints and so on) be out in the open, but more general staff discussions on the level of "What do we do about poster X?" or "Is poster Y a troll?" or "Argh! Poster Z has been winding me up and I need to vent!" need to be done in private.

[mac_philo]

more general staff discussions on the level of "What do we do about poster X?" or "Is poster Y a troll?" or "Argh! Poster Z has been winding me up and I need to vent!" need to be done in private.

Why? Why shouldn't the republic's deliberations on what to do with poster X, and the findings of the committee on whether poster Y is a troll, be open to the citizens? Hiding such is how almost every other forum does it, and it's how everyone did it at IIDB. Fine. Why does it need to be done in private? I see the costs of making it public---it will cause some awkwardness and anxiety and some hurt feelings. What is that against the idea that the deliberations of a republic should be open to the citizens? Not much.

As for the last, it is nothing but a staff perk, which should not exist. Perks in themselves do nothing but put staff above members, and that particular perk does nothing but further distinguish a private, closed culture from the public culture. This creates more opportunities for rifts and problems to develop between staff and members.

When all deliberations are open, a respectful and egalitarian stance is compulsory, assuming the recall mechanisms have any force. With private deliberations, it is optional, and something that one can choose to turn on and off. I think some people here might have recollection of past problems in this area.

[umop apisdn w,I]

Why? Why shouldn't the republic's deliberations on what to do with poster X, and the findings of the committee on whether poster Y is a troll, be open to the citizens? Hiding such is how almost every other forum does it, and it's how everyone did it at IIDB. Fine. Why does it need to be done in private? I see the costs of making it public---it will cause some awkwardness and anxiety and some hurt feelings.

That's what I was talking about when I said that it was desirable in an ideal world.

But we don't have an ideal world where everyone is mature and understanding, and can cope with hurt feelings and a bit of awkwardness.

Instead we are in the real world - where we do have those people, but we also have trolls, idiots and drama-queens.

Just think of all the disruption, for example, that will result from trolls being able to see (with great glee) exactly how far they are pushing the boundaries and therefore moderate their behaviour accordingly in order to cause maximum disruption and even rifts within the staff...

As for the last, it is nothing but a staff perk, which should not exist. Perks in themselves do nothing but put staff above members, and that particular perk does nothing but further distinguish a private, closed culture from the public culture. This creates more opportunities for rifts and problems to develop between staff and members.

For staff to work well, they need to work well as a team. The ability to discuss posters and to "vent" is vital to team-building (although I hate that phrase, in this case I think it is appropriate).

Effectively the staff should form a community-within-a-community.

And these "perks" as you call them are necessary for that to happen. If it doesn't happen, if being on staff doesn't make you feel as if you are "a valuable part of a team", what incentive is there for anyone to volunteer to do the job? It pretty much only leaves desire to have power over others - and that is not why you want people to be moderating.

Incidentally, that's one of the reasons why this board is so top-heavy in terms of number of staff. Most of us admins were head-hunted in a conscious attempt to - in the immortal words of Jake and Elwood - "put the band back together". We were a known quantity, and we were known to be able to work well together as a team.

[mac_philo]

The incentive is to make the discussion here flourish. If that is not sufficient, the person doesn't belong on staff. They can team build in public.

As for maturity and understanding, my proposal does not require those from members in ideal qualities. If they cannot cope with the discussion, how do you propose they cope with being officially branded a troll, with being reprimanded, with being marginalized in any way? Because we will do all those things. The discussion about problem cases should be respectful enough that you aren't causing the problems you're citing. It is not our responsibility to structure this place around those who cannot cope with a frank and respectful assesment by reasonable people about their posting---this is a freethought site, and everyone should be exposed to respectful criticism. The only maturity and understanding required in my proposal is on the part of the staff, and when it is absent, we recall. This is precisely why I was talking about a respectful and egalitarian stance---because what passes for respectful behind closed doors at IIDB, and probably here, is not good enough any more. Not if we want to have a structural solution to the staff-member problems that destroyed IIDB. Talk Rational's current structure solves only IIDB's dictator problem, not its staff-member problem.

As for the glee of the trolls, that is already present. Again, are we to design our political structures to prevent the temporary delight of trolls? I don't see how they can be any more disruptive since we are already working on the assumption that their behavior can be curtailed. Do you think that under your system the troll does not know when he is succeeding, does not know when he is being discussed? Of course he does.

[DMB]

I don't see why staff shouldn't have a tiny perk. It is a volunteer, unpaid job. Why make life more difficult for them? In the end, I think you have to trust the staff as a team. Any of us could have issues with a particular staff member. If so, we can bring them up in public. If the team works properly, they ought largely to monitor one another.

In any case, as a matter of practicality, you are not going to stop them using PMs if they can't have a private forum.

What is important is not that we should haul every last thing out into the open, but that we should be able to air important issues here in TH and, if necessary, recall staff. I am very keen to see a mechanism in place for bannings/suspensions that avoids things being done in secret or presented as an unchangeable fait accompli.

[Gojira]

I don't see why staff shouldn't have a tiny perk. It is a volunteer, unpaid job. Why make life more difficult for them? In the end, I think you have to trust the staff as a team. Any of us could have issues with a particular staff member. If so, we can bring them up in public. If the team works properly, they ought largely to monitor one another.

In any case, as a matter of practicality, you are not going to stop them using PMs if they can't have a private forum.

What is important is not that we should haul every last thing out into the open, but that we should be able to air important issues here in TH and, if necessary, recall staff. I am very keen to see a mechanism in place for bannings/suspensions that avoids things being done in secret or presented as an unchangeable fait accompli.


Yep, as far as I can see, we have to trust some people to run things - I don't suppose anyone would seriously suggest that everyone who signs up should immediately gain full admin rights?

So if we're going to trust them, surely we may as well make it as easy as we can for them to do things on our behalf?

Yes, explanations of why so and so's post was deleted are good and neccessary, but do we really need every last detail of the discussion minuted?

As long as there is some means for reasonable querying of admin/mod actions, then I don't see a problem, and do see benefits.

Just my opinion, worth what you paid for it.

[Pavlov's Dog]

If you are going to have a private forum then there should be a whistle blower exception. If a member of the staff feels that a post or series of posts crosses the lines of what this place is supposed to be about, they should not be penalized for outing those posts.

I have watched some of the members of this staff operate in the private forum at IIDB, so I know how they behave in there. It leads me to trust some, but not others.

[Ian Nerr]

If you are going to have a private forum then there should be a whistle blower exception. If a member of the staff feels that a post or serious of posts crosses the lines of what this place is supposed to be about, they should not be penalized for outing those posts.

I have watched some of the members of this staff operate in the private forum at IIDB, so I know how they behave in there. It leads me to trust some, but not others.

I think this is a good idea. The problems at IIDB didn't come from having private forums but from the weird secrecy policy.

[Christina]

I almost proposed that last night but was too tired to think of how to say it. I would agree that whistle blowing is appropriate and necessary at times. If someone on staff feels that something is unethical or inappropriate and can't resolve it with the rest of the staff, I don't think that bringing it up publicly is at all a breach of confidentiality.

[umop apisdn w,I]

If you are going to have a private forum then there should be a whistle blower exception. If a member of the staff feels that a post or series of posts crosses the lines of what this place is supposed to be about, they should not be penalized for outing those posts.

I have watched some of the members of this staff operate in the private forum at IIDB, so I know how they behave in there. It leads me to trust some, but not others.

I almost proposed that last night but was too tired to think of how to say it. I would agree that whistle blowing is appropriate and necessary at times. If someone on staff feels that something is unethical or inappropriate and can't resolve it with the rest of the staff, I don't think that bringing it up publicly is at all a breach of confidentiality.

I certainly agree that a "whistleblower" policy is a good thing - in that although there should be a reasonable expectation of privacy in the staff forum, there shouldn't be an expectation of secrecy or confidentiality.

Having said that, like anything else it is not a black and white issue, for example:

* Things like personal details shared for emergency-contact purposes and such should remain confidential.

* There is a definite distinction in my mind between mod A finding mod B's behaviour unethical and "whistleblowing" it, and mod A having a personal fall out with mod B and therefore maliciously gossiping to users about what mod B "really thinks of them" as a form of petty revenge. The former should always be fine. The latter, in my opinion, isn't. Like many things, though, it is not the sort of situation where you can draw a hard and fast line .

[dug_down_deep]

In any case, as a matter of practicality, you are not going to stop them using PMs if they can't have a private forum.
Yeah. If you replace my bathroom walls with glass, I'm going to start showering with my clothes on.

[RBH]

I almost proposed that last night but was too tired to think of how to say it. I would agree that whistle blowing is appropriate and necessary at times. If someone on staff feels that something is unethical or inappropriate and can't resolve it with the rest of the staff, I don't think that bringing it up publicly is at all a breach of confidentiality.Hoo boy! There's a potential can of worms. Part of what many of us fled was a system where the interests of an outside body -- the IIDB Board of Directors -- took precedence over everything else, up to and including a provision of IIDB's charter (building a community) and the best judgment of its senior management (i.e., the half dozen administrators who resigned).

Part of what administrators are for is to help resolve hard and sometimes delicate board management issues, and in the extreme case, to impose a resolution. We don't yet have a clear job description for administrators, but in essence I see it as ensuring that policies and behaviors are consistent with the underlying goals of the board.

Now, what are those goals? We have a thread in TH on What do you want TR to be? (http://www.talkrational.org/showthread.php?t=342). In it Febble quoted RexT:The culture I want: freethinking, inclusive, tolerant, outreaching, self-organizing, harmless, inviting, charming, intelligent, progressive, caring, fun, and such as this.To accomplish something like that in a world in which there are, as Dean has said, trolls, idiots, and drama queens requires active moderation and some level of control over what behaviors will be tolerated. In a world in which there are not a few trolls, etc., communities are vulnerable to disruption by a vocal minority who can poison the atmosphere for everyone else. So we need moderation to accomplish those goals, and we need to make decisions every day that serve them. Those decisions are sometimes not easy and are not always unanimous. To be a community of freethinkers does not mean that anything goes. Freethinking =! anarchy.

So I think a whistleblower policy that permits publication of staff deliberations must be very carefully thought through. At a minimum, I think that no one staff member should be empowered to make that judgment. If a staff member feels that a decision requires blowing the whistle but can't persuade, say, two (or some other specified minimum number) other staff members to sign on, or perhaps some specified number to include at least one administrator, or some such minimum level of dissent, then I would not see it as appropriate to publish.

Jet Black has raised the possibility of publishing minority reports. I think that's an possibility worth exploring. In instances where there is a consensus on a decision but not an overwhelming one, those staff who feel differently about a decision could provide such a report to go along with the publication of the majority decision. At the least such a procedure would reassure posters that the staff is not a monolithic body infected by groupthink and an illusion of unanimity.

[dug_down_deep]

Heh heh. He said Hoo boy.

[RBH]

Heh heh. He said Hoo boy.Yeah, yeah. I had repressed ... erm. :D

[Octavia]

I like the idea of publishing the minority reports.

I also think that the whistle-blowing idea has merits. Although I understand RBH's reluctance, I'm not sure that it would be as difficult as he thinks. I think the line between giving out private information just to bitch, and whistle-blowing due to an ethical dilemma is going to be quite easy to see. After all, one would imagine that a genuine whistle-blower would have spent some time trying to convince their fellow staff members of their concerns before whistle-blowing.

If, on the other hand, someone were to go along quite happily with no indication of dissent, and then let out information about another staff member they have a problem with, and then try to claim ethical dilemma, then it's pretty obvious that they're being a duplicitous piece of shit.

[Christina]

Given that a mod can be recalled by other mods or admins I think that we have a method in place to deal with someone that decides that anytime that someone disagrees with them it's an unethical act or that just likes to gossip to get attention and feel popular. If it's really unethical I doubt that only one person would have a problem with whatever it is.

I don't have much respect for anyone that silently goes along with things that they disagree with because they don't have the balls to stand up to the rest of the staff and then paints themselves as the avenging hero for the public show and attacks all of their coworkers. I would assume that anyone who expects their actions to be seen as whistleblowing would have the ability to object when it first gets discussesd.

[Flying Buttress]

I don't need to know how moderating decisions are arrived upon. No need to publicize 'whistle blowers' or minority reports that I can think of.

Frankly, the LESS I hear about inner politics, the happier I'll be.

[Jet Black]

I don't need to know how moderating decisions are arrived upon. No need to publicize 'whistle blowers' or minority reports that I can think of.

Frankly, the LESS I hear about inner politics, the happier I'll be.

oh quite the contrary. In some decisions there is disagreement between staff members on things, and when the final consensus decision is made it can look like the staff are just telling people what to do, and damn anyone who dares argue or holds a different opinion. This can create friction between the membership and the staff of the forum and often make the members feel like they are being ignored. I've seen this at least twice on different fora now and it leads to a heck of a mess. Sure many will not care about the politics, but many also become quite invested in the communities that they participate in.

[Jet Black]

I like the idea of publishing the minority reports.

I also think that the whistle-blowing idea has merits. Although I understand RBH's reluctance, I'm not sure that it would be as difficult as he thinks. I think the line between giving out private information just to bitch, and whistle-blowing due to an ethical dilemma is going to be quite easy to see. After all, one would imagine that a genuine whistle-blower would have spent some time trying to convince their fellow staff members of their concerns before whistle-blowing.

If, on the other hand, someone were to go along quite happily with no indication of dissent, and then let out information about another staff member they have a problem with, and then try to claim ethical dilemma, then it's pretty obvious that they're being a duplicitous piece of shit.

I think that the presence of an ombudsman as well as minority reports would hopefully negate the likelihood of whistleblowing, which is generally a response to cultures of secrecy, be it scientology or government departments.

I would suggest that the ombudsman could be privately contacted by any staff (as well as members ) with serious concerns, who for whatever reason feels they cannot talk up, and then the ombudsman would pose that question to the rest of the staff or deal with it appropriately. There is no need for an ombudsman to be purely for checking up on the staff and making sure they aren't doing anything dodgy wrt the membership.

[umop apisdn w,I]

I think that the presence of an ombudsman as well as minority reports would hopefully negate the likelihood of whistleblowing, which is generally a response to cultures of secrecy, be it scientology or government departments.

Bear in mind that the whole "whistleblower" discussion is completely hypothetical at this point, since there is hopefully never going to a need for anything like that.

All we should need on the whistleblowing front is some kind of clause in the moderation procedures that explicitly says that although there is a default expectation of privacy in the staff forum there is no explicit confidentiality rule preventing staff (or the Ombie) from reporting what is said in there should they think it for the benefit of the membership at large to do so.

I don't think any more formal structure than that is needed. It's just to prevent the slow creep of "confidentiality culture", so that if - at a future date - either we or whichever staff follow us decide that we want confidentiality promises and the like from staff then we are going to have to damn well visibly change the rules in order to get that.

[Octavia]

All we should need on the whistleblowing front is some kind of clause in the moderation procedures that explicitly says that although there is a default expectation of privacy in the staff forum there is no explicit confidentiality rule preventing staff (or the Ombie) from reporting what is said in there should they think it for the benefit of the membership at large to do so.


I've got no problems adding that to the mod guidelines. Anyone else?

[dug_down_deep]

OK by me.

[Christina]

Me too.

[ravenscape]

And me.

[Febble]

And me.

[mac_philo]

All we should need on the whistleblowing front is some kind of clause in the moderation procedures that explicitly says that although there is a default expectation of privacy in the staff forum there is no explicit confidentiality rule preventing staff (or the Ombie) from reporting what is said in there should they think it for the benefit of the membership at large to do so.

If there is any whistelblower policy, there should be no penalty not just for reporting, but fully re-posting (minus any personal data). That should be explicit.

A staff member should have the power to do this alone. You don't need to get others on board. At your discretion, you can report or repost whatever you want in the Town Hall for public discussion.

If you don't trust the person to have the right judgment on when to be transparent about the operation of the site, why are you trusting them to operate the site?

Requiring admin consent or some minimum number of staff to consent neuters the policy. The staff is a product of abrupt, self-selective migration, and in the interest of transparency you must not give old cronies near veto power over disclosure of their posts.

Whether or not there is a whistelblower policy, the aim should be for maximal publicity. A whistelblower policy does not mean it is right to carry over the IIDB culture of private discussion. If we opt for anything less than total openness, then this sort of whistleblowing policy is an excellent idea. It would still provide all the alleged functions of private fora---except fostering a closed culture with the corrosive expectation of confidentialiy.

[mac_philo]

I mean "old cronies" in the nice sense of longstanding associations, agreements, and friendships, not in the sense associated with Chicago aldermen.

[RexT]

Count me in too.

[Octavia]

If there is any whistelblower policy, there should be no penalty not just for reporting, but fully re-posting (minus any personal data). That should be explicit.

I think that's fair. Anyone disagree?

A staff member should have the power to do this alone. You don't need to get others on board. At your discretion, you can report or repost whatever you want in the Town Hall for public discussion.

I may be tired or have just missed something, but has anyone suggested otherwise? Of course whistle-blowing should be at the discretion of the individual - but one would expect a good faith effort on the part of that individual to bring their concerns to the rest of the staff or ombudsman before blowing the whistle. At the least an "I don't think this is a very good idea, and this is why: XXX. I'm so convinced of this that I'll take it to the members if you can't alleviate my concerns."

I think that's fair too. Anyone disagree?

[umop apisdn w,I]

I think that's fair. Anyone disagree?

Not me. It's what I had in mind when I wrote "reporting what is said". I assumed that "reporting" meant quoting directly rather than just paraphrasing. There's no reason not to make that explicit.

I may be tired or have just missed something, but has anyone suggested otherwise? Of course whistle-blowing should be at the discretion of the individual - but one would expect a good faith effort on the part of that individual to bring their concerns to the rest of the staff or ombudsman before blowing the whistle. At the least an "I don't think this is a very good idea, and this is why: XXX. I'm so convinced of this that I'll take it to the members if you can't alleviate my concerns."

I think that's fair too. Anyone disagree?

Sounds fine to me - although I am concerned that we don't want to get too detailed and legalese on this. A simple sentence is far better than a paragraph.

[Oolon Colluphid]

Why? Why shouldn't the republic's deliberations on what to do with poster X, and the findings of the committee on whether poster Y is a troll, be open to the citizens? Hiding such is how almost every other forum does it, and it's how everyone did it at IIDB. Fine. Why does it need to be done in private? I see the costs of making it public---it will cause some awkwardness and anxiety and some hurt feelings. What is that against the idea that the deliberations of a republic should be open to the citizens? Not much.
Well, while the analogy between staff discussions and juries isn't perfect, one might make a similar point about why juries sit in private, not down the pub with all and sundry chipping in.

Just throwing that out for consideration, not passing judgement one way or another.

[Oolon Colluphid]

I think that's fair. Anyone disagree?



I may be tired or have just missed something, but has anyone suggested otherwise? Of course whistle-blowing should be at the discretion of the individual - but one would expect a good faith effort on the part of that individual to bring their concerns to the rest of the staff or ombudsman before blowing the whistle. At the least an "I don't think this is a very good idea, and this is why: XXX. I'm so convinced of this that I'll take it to the members if you can't alleviate my concerns."

I think that's fair too. Anyone disagree?

What she said.

Or put it this way: Just try to fucking stop me.

IIDB had me fooled for a while, in an incredulous, 'nah, they won't do that, surely?!' kind of way. I now keep my whistle handy at all times.

What I see so far leads me to have no doubt whatever that we're all on the right lines, however. As much as anything because so many of us were similarly burned. I expect we've got a staffroom full of whistleblowers, if it came to it. Hell, look at the fact that we've got a thread like this!

[dug_down_deep]

Um...but there should also be something about personal information not being available for whistleblowing fodder. That should be added in.

[Jet Black]

again, this is why I think the suggestion of whistleblowing via the ombudsman would be an ideal option. The ombudsman can just post the whistleblowing post and strip off any too-revealing information.

I would prefer to just see the system set up such that whistleblowing is never needed though (but I suppose still there as an emergency option) - the minority report would allow potential whistleblowers to air their concerns over various actions in public each time an action is taken, and the ombudsman would make sure that nothing crap is happening behind the scenes and reveal it when it is. The lack of separation between admins and mods ensures that the admins are held accountable at all times by the mods and the ombudsman.

[RBH]

I may be tired or have just missed something, but has anyone suggested otherwise? Of course whistle-blowing should be at the discretion of the individual - but one would expect a good faith effort on the part of that individual to bring their concerns to the rest of the staff or ombudsman before blowing the whistle. Somewhere I floated the idea that a potential whistleblower should be able to enlist at least one other staff member, so as to reduce the probability of a single aggrieved staff member blowing on some idiosyncratic perception.

[Autodidact]

Uh, never gave it a moment's thought and couldn't care less?

[judanne]

Well, while the analogy between staff discussions and juries isn't perfect, one might make a similar point about why juries sit in private, not down the pub with all and sundry chipping in.

Just throwing that out for consideration, not passing judgement one way or another.It's nevertheless, a very good point IMO. In theory, adequate transparency and participatory democracy is what we should aim for. It may even work well while TR is a fairly small board. I'm not convinced it will work as well if our membership swells to iidb proportions though (heh. maybe I'm dreamin', I dunno). My concern is that the mods and admins are going to end up spending most of their time resolving petty moderation issues that shouldn't even become board-wide issues. I'm not saying there aren't all kinds of legitimate complaints possible or shouldn't be some fair avenue for addressing them, just that there are a lot of folks who just can't stand being wrong, being chastised or censured, or moderated in any way, even when they're clearly in the wrong and they're going to eat bandwidth, baby. Count on it. What I can see happening with mod fora/decision making completely open to member participation is moderator's time being monopolized by people with apparently large, but fragile ego's. They will turn what should be a minor issue into something of (if you'll excuse the expression) biblical proportions. Not likely a problem when TR is a relatively small community but as it grows I can see the proposed structure getting cumbersome and difficult to maintain. Will the mods and admins actually have time to contribute content and perform some of the other functions of their positions or will they be debating every little mod action with the membership every time somebody doesn't like some corrective action on their part?

I'm not fond of the "anything goes" atmosphere in which threads have an annoying tendency to degrade to a lowest common denominator and become a big waste of time. As RBH noted earlier, freethought isn't a synonym for anarchy. One of the things I found attractive about TR was its intention not to be a no-holds-barred pissing match where members exercise their newly acquired rights with little appreciation of the responsibility or wisdom that ought to go hand-in-hand with the freedoms.

I resigned as a mod at iidb well before the shitstorm, so perhaps I don't have a heathy enough sense of paranoia about closed mod/admin fora. Perhaps I should. However, I do have quite a lot of skepticism about the ability of the process to work well when everyone and anyone can be directly involved in the decision making. It's like making soup for an anarchist pot-luck:

person 1: Let's make delicious soup for everyone!
person 2: Ok, but don't be putting any meat in there. Vegetarians Rule!
person 3: Well, I guess I can forgo the meat, but don't you put any of that fucking tofu init.
person 4: Beans give me gas, leave those out of it
person 5: ...or any green vegetables...deeesguuustinggg! Gak!
person 6: I have a peanut allergy. No peanuts. Just speaking the word causes me to have an asthma attack. Here kitty, kitty. Awwwwww.
person 7: No potatoes dammit! The potato-growing people of PEI are oppressed workers toiling for substandard wages!
person 8: Hey I heard carrots are injected with Red dye #6, better not use those.
person 9: I don't like soup.

Water it is then!

Perhaps I'm belaboring the point a little (...and poking fun at any anarchists out there :) ) but I can see complete transparency and access turning into a frustrating mess that doesn't accomplish much but sucks up mod/admin time & energy. Surely we can come up with a plan that's somewhere in between anarchy and the Ministry of Truth.

I'm lukewarm on the whistleblowing thing...or maybe I'm just confused or didn't read carefully enough, but what's the point of this if the mod forum is open or transparent to the membership? Has that idea been ditched and I'm just too slow to have picked up on it? (quite possible since I've had so many interruptions this afternoon it's taken 3 hours to write this little bit and the thread may have moved on since I started it) Oh well, can't be helped. It only makes sense if the mod/admin fora are for mods & admins only...doesn't it? Am I just not getting something?

[David B]

^^ Sometimes we could really use some sort of rep button.

David B

[Oolon Colluphid]

There's two ways of achieving transparency (he sez, probably setting up a false dichotomy ;)).

One is for every last thing being open to anyone's scrutiny. That may work under some Freedom of Information Act, but on a discussion board, where anyone can chip in, I reckon it rapidly becomes unworkable (as judanne has so well indicated).

The other way is to have some 'secrecy' -- in the form of practical privacy -- and appoint the right people in the first place.

Not because they're your mates. Because they seem to generally be of sound mind and character; not about to stab anyone in the back over a minor disagreement, but happy to blow the whistle on nefarious shenanigans. Able to judge when the ever-vague line of fairness has been crossed. People who are, as far as we can tell, basically, usually, fair. (Or, to be able to include meself in there, at least who feel sorry about it in the hung-over morning and are happy to suffer the consequences :D)

[David B]

There's two ways of achieving transparency (he sez, probably setting up a false dichotomy ;)).

One is for every last thing being open to anyone's scrutiny. That may work under some Freedom of Information Act, but on a discussion board, where anyone can chip in, I reckon it rapidly becomes unworkable (as judanne has so well indicated).

The other way is to have some 'secrecy' -- in the form of practical privacy -- and appoint the right people in the first place.

Not because they're your mates. Because they seem to generally be of sound mind and character; not about to stab anyone in the back over a minor disagreement, but happy to blow the whistle on nefarious shenanigans. Able to judge when the ever-vague line of fairness has been crossed. People who are, as far as we can tell, basically, usually, fair. (Or, to be able to include meself in there, at least who feel sorry about it in the hung-over morning and are happy to suffer the consequences :D)

:D Me too

David B

[His Noodly Appendage]

Um.

I think people are falsely conflating transparency with open mic night.

Fishbowl moderation - read-only to non-staff - wouldn't involve the other members. I don't see, therefore, how the whole 'too many cooks' analogy being bandied about applies.

Also, just because RnR implements a given feature, it doesn't follow that implementing it here will make this place into RnR. Not all of the features of RnR contribute to its epic fail, and there's plenty of scope for variation in the way we might go about implementing here here, as well.

RnR has transparent moderation, but it has it in conjunction with open-mic administrative discussion, and a zero-moderation policy. The combination is deadly, but that doesn't damn every single ingredient. After all, it has topical forums and Dean, too, but I don't see people shying away lest we catch trolls from them.

No, I'm not obsessively pushing for full transparency. But if it's going to be rejected, I'd like to see it rejected on a reasonable basis.

[umop apisdn w,I]

No, you can't catch trolls from me - but cooties are another matter...

I think one of the problems with the transparency issue is that people tend to see it as a false dichotomy between doing everything in secret and with strict confidentiality (the IIDB model) and doing everything in the open where every passing troll can do their best to disrupt things (the RnR model).

The moderation staff of a board do lots of things, ranging from dealing with reported posts to banning people - and there is not a one-size-fits-all solution to how transparent and open things should be. Sure, everyone would like all moderation actions to be "as open as feasible", but exactly what is feasible varies depending on the action.

In an ideal world, there would be full openness and transparency and it would work.

But this is not an ideal world. This is a world where every single decision can get argued against ad nauseum by those with an idealogical axe to grind, those who just like to argue for its own sake, and those who just want to disrupt things for the "lulz". Sure, those sorts are in the minority on most boards, but they are a very vocal minority and can cause much more disruption and staff burnout than their numbers would suggest.

And the staff burnout issue is an important one. Assuming that people don't want to go for a zero-moderation model (and I'm assuming that most people here don't) then we need moderation staff, and if we want any kind of consistency we need long-term moderation staff.

Those staff are all volunteers, devoting their time for free - and if every decision and every expressed opinion which leads up to a decision is second-guessed and analysed and quibbled about and argued with (and they will be, no matter how reasonable they are, because the people doing the arguing won't necessarily be being reasonable) then the staff simply won't consider the job worth doing. The staff need to be given "space" to discuss things amongst themselves, and they need to be able to do their job without constantly looking over their shoulder.

In other words, it has to be a compromise, and some things will necessarily be more private than others - not because the staff haveanything to hide from normal members, but to protect the staff (and the members involved in complaints discussions, for that matter) from constant sniping and arguing.

[Oolon Colluphid]

Yup. I like the fishbowl vs open mic analogy a lot, but I think umop's nailed it. Too open -- as in, any passing bod being able to come and gawp -- will likely lead to incessant discussion about discussions, perennial peanut galleries etc. Like having a public gallery in the House of Commons that was on the regular tourbus route.

I'm feeling more and more that the Freedom of Information Act idea might work best. When something affects them, people can find out about it. And investigative journalists can devote their entire time to digging, till they (or, more likely, everyone else) gets bored. But mostly, things would be pretty boring for any investigative journalist too... but if something controversial were to turn up, something, as it were, in the public interest, then the public should be able to access it.

Make 'em jump through a few hoops first though, just to deter those with nothing better to do. :D

ETA: Information on demand, perhaps, but not just sitting there for the idly curious. We're not here, mainly, to discuss our own discussions -- I hope. Cos most of it is simply not of much interest.

Hmmm, an example. Suppose everyone were able to scan for stuff, browsing the 'MCR' in the way they might any other forum. That could lead to watching out for when an 'enemy' has copped an unfortunate one from the authorities... and using that, in itself probably minor, information against him/her. In other words, it is not in the public's -- or the board's -- interest to know that the mods had decided that so-and-so needed a quiet word, or been 'told off' for flamebait, or whatever. It is in their interest to know that someone has been suspended or banned, and they must have the right to find out the circumstances, to prevent conclusions being leaped to. (I prefer to arrive at mine, not long-jump 'em. ;))

[Jet Black]

I think privacy is also important for the sake of comfort when complaining. Many would not feel comfortable complaining about another member's conduct because they would fear reprisals when that other person finds out.

[Oolon Colluphid]

I think privacy is also important for the sake of comfort when complaining. Many would not feel comfortable complaining about another member's conduct because they would fear reprisals when that other person finds out.
Well said. I was groping towards saying that myself, but didn't quite get there.

[umop apisdn w,I]

Well said. I was groping towards saying that myself, but didn't quite get there.

That was you groping, was it? I wondered whose hands they were...

[Oolon Colluphid]

Put a smile on yer face, dinnit?

[Wordy]

I like that you have these considerations in the open and hopefully it help us to come up with good solutions but it seems difficult to find the right balance between what is appropriate and what would be too tiring to deal with.

I feel embarrassed about not knowing what to recommend.

It is not easy to do moderation cause one get so caught up in it from the Moderator perspective that one have very small chance to know how it appear or feels from the receiving side.

Anyway good luck. Keep at it. :)

[DMB]

Don't worry, wordy. With non-staff like me some of these bastards know I will give them hell if they start getting swollen heads! :p

[Christina]

It is not easy to do moderation cause one get so caught up in it from the Moderator perspective that one have very small chance to know how it appear or feels from the receiving side.

Anyway good luck. Keep at it. :)

Thanks for the luck : )

It isn't really true to say that we don't know what it's like on the other side. Most if not all of us are regular posters on other sites. Sometimes the distance is created more in people's imagination than in reality.

[Wordy]

DMB with that smile on your Avatar I guess they thread easy around here.

Christina, I am Mod at a small small forum and I know it is not easy but that could be just me. I'm a bit sensitive. I guess we all need luck. Or good planning at least.

wordy.

PS to DMB, sorry me changed a char in your username somewhere.

[judanne]

Oolon: I'm feeling more and more that the Freedom of Information Act idea might work bestI like that idea too. That way, members who are affected are able to access information that pertains to them and malicious types can't just browse for information to use against someone they dislike. Used in combination with an "ombudsman" I think it would provide a reasonable level of assurance that mods and admins aren't having illicit kitten roasts and such.

umop...:Those staff are all volunteers, devoting their time for free - and if every decision and every expressed opinion which leads up to a decision is second-guessed and analysed and quibbled about and argued with (and they will be, no matter how reasonable they are, because the people doing the arguing won't necessarily be being reasonable) then the staff simply won't consider the job worth doing. The staff need to be given "space" to discuss things amongst themselves, and they need to be able to do their job without constantly looking over their shoulder.That's important too. I don't think many people would want to do any job where their every action and word, no matter how small, is scrutinized. Just not pleasant. We need to keep in mind that the mods and admins are members too and should be able to enjoy this place as much as everyone else.

Jet Black:I think privacy is also important for the sake of comfort when complaining. Many would not feel comfortable complaining about another member's conduct because they would fear reprisals when that other person finds out....and all their friends. Not a very comfortable situation for the complainant and not in the best interest of members generally, IMO.

[Octavia]

OK, going back to the whistle-blower discussion, how's this for a draft addition to the mod guidelines:

Whistle-blowing at TR:
Whistle-blowing is publicly posting information from the staff forum in order to bring the attention of TR posters to an issue the whistle-blower feels is of direct and immediate importance. TR recognises that whistle-blowing can be an ethical action done to relieve an ethical dilemma.

TR will not penalise any of their staff (including mods, admins, and ombudsmen) for whistle-blowing. That being said, the whistle-blower has the responsibility to minimise potential damage to TR by the following:

The whistle-blower recognises that they do not have authority to leak personal information (such as staff contact details) and that this should be stripped from the original material before posting.
The whistle-blower recognises that, in order to minimise false interpretations, they should where-ever possible quote directly rather than paraphrase.
The whistle-blower recognises that they should make a good faith effort to have his or her concerns addressed by other staff members before taking it to the posters.



Additions, deletions, suggestions?

[judanne]

Octavia:whistle-blowing can be an ethical action done to relieve an ethical dilemma.Can be, or is an ethical action done to relieve an ethical dilemma? Are there other situations where whistle blowing would be acceptable? I can't think of any offhand, but maybe there are some. I guess what I'm trying to get at here is we wouldn't want mods to get the impression its ok to blow that whistle just because they're not happy with a majority decision for other than ethical (or other valid?) reasons. Maybe the mod in question should be required to start a whistle-blowing thread in MCR that clearly articulates the ethical problem they will report to the membership...something like that, anyway - a FYI thread so that other mods/admins are aware that it's happening.

[Jet Black]

Can be, or is an ethical action done to relieve an ethical dilemma? Are there other situations where whistle blowing would be acceptable? I can't think of any offhand, but maybe there are some. I guess what I'm trying to get at here is we wouldn't want mods to get the impression its ok to blow that whistle just because they're not happy with a majority decision for other than ethical (or other valid?) reasons. Maybe the mod in question should be required to start a whistle-blowing thread in MCR that clearly articulates the ethical problem they will report to the membership...something like that, anyway - a FYI thread so that other mods/admins are aware that it's happening.

think of it more like an emergency release valve. For decisions that are made, there should be the opportunity of a minority report meaning that the mods/admins in question still get to express their differing opinions. I would see whistleblowing as a method to express really serious concerns about corruption in some way, for example if someone sees moderators or admins colluding to do something inappropriate.

[judanne]

Can be, or is an ethical action done to relieve an ethical dilemma? Are there other situations where whistle blowing would be acceptable? I can't think of any offhand, but maybe there are some. I guess what I'm trying to get at here is we wouldn't want mods to get the impression its ok to blow that whistle just because they're not happy with a majority decision for other than ethical (or other valid?) reasons. Maybe the mod in question should be required to start a whistle-blowing thread in MCR that clearly articulates the ethical problem they will report to the membership...something like that, anyway - a FYI thread so that other mods/admins are aware that it's happening.

think of it more like an emergency release valve. For decisions that are made, there should be the opportunity of a minority report meaning that the mods/admins in question still get to express their differing opinions. I would see whistleblowing as a method to express really serious concerns about corruption in some way, for example if someone sees moderators or admins colluding to do something inappropriate.Ah 'K. That's sensible.

[Jobar]

I'm good with that whistle-blower policy.

And I have a suggestion which I made many moons ago at II, which flew like a lead balloon- after six months, open up the Mod forum as a read-only archive. After a year, do the same with the Admin forum.

IOW, in March '09, make the first six months of the Mod forum a read-only forum for all registered members. This way, non-officials get to see what actually goes on in the official forums, but you volunteers don't have people breathing down your necks while you deal with current problems.

I thought about making this a new thread; if you guys think it has merit, split it off, OK?

[Ian Nerr]

I like that idea, Jobar.

[Octavia]

^We don't actually have an admin forum here. Any admin decisions and threads are made in the staff forum where all the staff can see them

We have just tended to stick [Admins only please] on an admin thread, though of course the mods can chime in if they see us missing something really important.

[deadman_932]

Jobar's idea of "opening the books" regularly was valid at IIDB and is a good one here.

I would hope it could help ensure a greater degree of professionalism in mods and admins as well as discourage the problem of mod/admin group-think and coalition building. Clearly the answer is not anarchy anymore than dictatorship is, and a relatively transparent (with cause) structure with checks and balances all the way up and down...and whistle-blower security...well, that's damn good.

[Oolon Colluphid]

I don't see much of an ethical problem with releasing stuff after (say) six months, as such. I do have some concerns though.

1) It may result in the raking up of otherwise long-dead rancours. The people who are most likely to give a shit about such discussions anyway are those who came off on the wrong side of something. So the first thing they'd do -- heh, the first thing I'd do if, later this month (ie six months on) IIDB opened up the MCR and ACR discussions from October to general viewing -- is to pore over the stuff for more info and outrages. Now, our plan here is to be as open as possible, and have enough feedback -- and professionalism -- that there'd be little 'damaging' or 'embarrassing' stuff in the Staff Phorum anyway. I don't think I have said, or am likely to say, anything there I wouldn't say or be prepared to defend in public. But that's not to stop the disgruntled -- or the 'never forgive nor forget' buggers like me -- causing more disruption, six months on.

2) I wonder whether opening stuff some way down the line would do any good. Most confloptions happen in, if not real time, then net time. When TOM banned people then went into purdah, we wanted to know what was going on straight away. Six months later wouldn't have cut it. So what, really, would be the point? If you can't defend something at the time -- as one must -- then it will be no more defensible half a year later, and will just stir things up again when that fact does come to light.

3) And the flip side of the 'what's the point' point: Most of the discussions are of little real interest, even to those of us who can already see 'em ;). It's all 'is this thread in the wrong forum?', 'this looks a bit dodgy, maybe keep an eye on it' etc. To be sure, we're thrashing out some 'how to handle' ideas at the moment too, but ideas that get floated in there seem to end up 'out here' for you guys to have a go at too. And as we get more settled, I anticipate the content to become of less and less general interest. (If you don't belileve me, or think I might be covering up anything, then you don't know me at all.)

In short, I doubt there's any point having a Six Month Rule. If something needs to be 'revealed', it should be done at the time: a Six Fucking Hour Rule. And we've got whistle-touting, hair-trigger-indignant bastards like me ready to say so in no uncertain terms.

[Jet Black]

the problem with the six month suggestion that I see is that it is the same problem as with the open all the time rule - namely that conversations that people percieve as not wanting to be made public, will be made public. I could understand if it was a 100 year rule so that the people involved were all long dead.

[Jobar]

I don't see much of an ethical problem with releasing stuff after (say) six months, as such. I do have some concerns though.

1) It may result in the raking up of otherwise long-dead rancours. The people who are most likely to give a shit about such discussions anyway are those who came off on the wrong side of something. So the first thing they'd do -- heh, the first thing I'd do if, later this month (ie six months on) IIDB opened up the MCR and ACR discussions from October to general viewing -- is to pore over the stuff for more info and outrages. Now, our plan here is to be as open as possible, and have enough feedback -- and professionalism -- that there'd be little 'damaging' or 'embarrassing' stuff in the Staff Phorum anyway. I don't think I have said, or am likely to say, anything there I wouldn't say or be prepared to defend in public. But that's not to stop the disgruntled -- or the 'never forgive nor forget' buggers like me -- causing more disruption, six months on.

Yep. Quite true.

2) I wonder whether opening stuff some way down the line would do any good. Most confloptions happen in, if not real time, then net time. When TOM banned people then went into purdah, we wanted to know what was going on straight away. Six months later wouldn't have cut it. So what, really, would be the point? If you can't defend something at the time -- as one must -- then it will be no more defensible half a year later, and will just stir things up again when that fact does come to light.

True again. Having a Freedom of Information Act-type revealing of staff actions won't prevent staff fuckups. But if TR is to be some analog of a republic, then we members need to be able to ultimately see exactly what the staff (=government) has done in our name. And if the majority then want to change things, we can make our will known.

Also, I suspect that just knowing that what you officials post will at some point become visible to those over whom you exercise authority, will help prevent some sorts of screwups.

3) And the flip side of the 'what's the point' point: Most of the discussions are of little real interest, even to those of us who can already see 'em ;). It's all 'is this thread in the wrong forum?', 'this looks a bit dodgy, maybe keep an eye on it' etc. To be sure, we're thrashing out some 'how to handle' ideas at the moment too, but ideas that get floated in there seem to end up 'out here' for you guys to have a go at too. And as we get more settled, I anticipate the content to become of less and less general interest. (If you don't belileve me, or think I might be covering up anything, then you don't know me at all.)

In short, I doubt there's any point having a Six Month Rule. If something needs to be 'revealed', it should be done at the time: a Six Fucking Hour Rule. And we've got whistle-touting, hair-trigger-indignant bastards like me ready to say so in no uncertain terms.

I was a mod at II, so I well remember how mundane most of the stuff in the MCR was. I don't doubt that the Admin forum was that way, too, though I never saw it.

I'm damn glad we've got loud-mouth and over-sensitive bastards like you that are willing to keep an eye on things on a daily basis. :D But those of us who aren't involved in the actual daily running of the board should have the option of seeing how it's done, even if it isn't in real time.

If we decide to do this, most people won't bother reading those archives, I feel sure. And the ones that do will be the nosy ones, and the ones with axes to grind, and it will result in some hard feelings and six-month-old shit being stirred back up. I don't doubt that implementing my suggestion will create problems of its own, somewhere down the line. TANSTAAFL. Part of freedom is the freedom to bitch, aye?

David B pointed out to me that there are personal details which are sometimes necessarily discussed by board officials, that ought not to be made public. I agree, and see that as the single greatest difficulty with my suggestion. Those details would need to be deleted before publication. I might suggest that you authorities start highlighting such information in a specific color, so as to make editing it out easier.

All in all though, I think doing it this way might solve more problems than it causes. At least, any screwups it causes will be new and different ones!

[deadman_932]

1. General whistle-blower protection.
2. Short-term transparency remedy- "Freedom of Information Act"
3. Long-term transparency remedy - "Opening the books" periodically, redacted of course. No IP's, no user locations, no details of private info.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The single greatest issue that arose during the IIDB debacle was precisely this transparency notion: "Why was X banned/removed/sent to the Gulag? Why can't we know HOW and why this was done and by who?"

One of the primary problems that any forum faces is the formation of administrative group-think blocs that act in lockstep, quid-pro-quo manner to discourage dissent and effectively isolate, ostracize and otherwise "punish" dissenters from within.

Perhaps it's a lot of work initially, but I can assure you there are those that won't be looking for old grudges to revive -- they'll be looking for patterns of cooperation between mods/admins that signal this kind of..well, effective kleptocracy. It is certainly possible *ahem* to give superficial lip-service to "freedom and comunity" while simultaneously acting to mold the forum into a little ideal fiefdom/playground for the few, N'est ce pas? Thus, it would seem prudent to consider what can be done to allay such suspicions AND prevent the actual occurence of such.

Many of you know each other well. That's nice. However, I view the fact that pre-existing potential coalitions already exist as sufficient cause for concern. Following IIDB, the debacle at RnR should have reinforced the notion of how pernicious coalition-formation and group-think can be. Basically, a little war of tribes erupted with those "kids" effectively exposing weaknesses...that were amusingly analogous to the weaknesses pointed out at IIDB. This was not pleasant to some that may have had utopian ideals in mind, I would imagine.

At any rate, because I don't ever plan on being a part of the power structure here or anywhere, I have no vested interest in what outcome occurs. I take a pragmatic view of what I do -- my purposes in posting at any site remain the same: to learn and disseminate information and combat my ideological counterparts. I don't need "transparency," really. I don't hold allegiances to bulletin boards (although I hold AtBC's benevolent dictatorship in high regard). But if people are serious about creating a system unlike any other that I've seen, then they may want to consider what their complaints were in the past regarding other systems of "governance." I'll be as comfortable posting here as I am anywhere else that I choose to post at, and if not, I'll vote with my feet, as the Kung!-San say.

On a final note, I'd add that whatever is done in regard to transparency can also be undone if it proves too disruptive or unwieldy. I don't have much more to say on the topic.

[BWE]

I just thank the holy spirit for every day I don't get banned from the internet.

[deadman_932]

BWE, you'd be the first to go under my iron-fisted rule! I'd set your posts up on pikes outside the gates as a warning: "Here there be dragons." Then I'd go serfing.

[BWE]

BWE, you'd be the first to go under my iron-fisted rule! I'd set your posts up on pikes outside the gates as a warning: "Here there be dragons." Then I'd go serfing.

Like I said, I just thank the holy spirit for every day I don't get banned from the internet.

If I surprise myself as often as I do, I can't imagine how shocked and offended others must be. The passive observer in me wishes to apologize but doesn't want to leave the party early.

[Octavia]

Just to let you know: you can now see stickied at the top of the TH a "TR Community Philosophy". It currently contains the member/mod guidelines, and the Whistle-Blower Protection Act (but with much less officious name). :)

So deadman, the first of your suggestions is now enshrined. Whistle-blowing of iffy situations is officially encouraged and protected from sanction.

We can add extra stuff to the thread as we get it sorted.

[His Noodly Appendage]

The reason I left HH was Gurdur blurring hat and non-hat boundaries. Specifically, denigrating and directing the conversation away from one philosophical position - from inside a mod-hat announcement.

Not that anyone here would do that, but as well as keeping hat-comments well-delineated, we should also be aware that imperative statements even outside the hat can look a bit intimidating at times.

[David B]

The reason I left HH was Gurdur blurring hat and non-hat boundaries. Specifically, denigrating and directing the conversation away from one philosophical position - from inside a mod-hat announcement.

Not that anyone here would do that, but as well as keeping hat-comments well-delineated, we should also be aware that imperative statements even outside the hat can look a bit intimidating at times.


Hmm.

I recall making one post in which I pointedly mentioned that I wasn't putting mod hat on, but that I might.

I take the view that it can also be a useful way of getting the ethos of the board across, which, while it might be a little intimidating, is less so than putting mod hat on, and reading the riot act.

Was that wrong?

David B

[RBH]

I'm reminded of a remark Oolon once made on IIDB in E/C: 'I've got a mod hat, and I'm not afraid to use it!'

(Roughly paraphrased.)

[Jobar]

No problems with mod hats- just as long as you guys don't start issuing hob-nailed moderator jackboots.

Well. Unless you contract with *me* to make 'em, of course.

Oh, and deadman- you should read pz's (in)famous 'bugger the principle of charity' (http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=1360798#post1360798) post, from 2004. I can but shudder at the thought of the reign of terror which the two of you would visit upon any forum in your terrible power!

[His Noodly Appendage]

Board ethos is one thing - I'm talking about the slightly coercive nature of on-topic debate. It's fairly normal to prod people a bit to pin them down on a point - instructing them to show X, or admit that Y. When you've got the Big Stick in your belt, however, this can take on unwanted overtones.

I'm just extrapolating from an incredibly blatant case to something that I suppose could slowly creep up from insignificance.

[deadman_932]

I'm just extrapolating from an incredibly blatant case to something that I suppose could slowly creep up from insignificance.That's pretty much the sort of thing I was trying to point to. It's certainly not that I don't trust people with "power" *cough* (I've scanned the list here and see nothing to have qualms about) BUT...I do know that it's so easy to just look the other way or rubberstamp inconsequential things and move on up the ladder.

Like most people, I've kept my mouth shut on occasion when someone posted something stupid just because "they're on my side," and it's that..banal level of acceptance (see Hannah Arendt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banality_of_Evil) )... which can lead to worse things, like "tribalism," hidden character assassination, sub rosa ostracism, banishment, etc. if such attitudes become institutionally prevalent.

So deadman, the first of your suggestions is now enshrined. Whistle-blowing of iffy situations is officially encouraged and protected from sanction. I *wish* I could take credit for that excellent idea. Shrines are nice!

Jobar: Hah! first time I've read that one. PZ's a madman, a compliment under specific circumstances. Toujours l'audace and all that. I'd pattern my rule after Viktor Von Doom, autarch of Latveria (or PZ himself ...I mean, really, is there a diff?) :
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f6/Docdoom_kirby.png

[seebs]

Hmm. Interesting question. I'd ignored it; I got used to it all being open at UC, and I haven't thought about it much since.

I tend to assume a structure with a general chatter place, a forum for report threads, and probably a trashed threads place. Those seem to be structurally encouraged by vb. I don't know what admins have.

[Jet Black]

the admins don't have anything special - just the public and mod fora.

[RBH]

the admins don't have anything special - just the public and mod fora.Shhhhhhh!!

[Jet Black]

the admins don't have anything special - just the public and mod fora.Shhhhhhh!!

don't worry, I won't tell them about the super super secret forum that not even the mods know about with our giant statue of.......

oh sh...

[Oolon Colluphid]

Just to let you know: you can now see stickied at the top of the TH a "TR Community Philosophy". It currently contains the member/mod guidelines, and the Whistle-Blower Protection Act (but with much less officious name). :)

So deadman, the first of your suggestions is now enshrined. Whistle-blowing of iffy situations is officially encouraged and protected from sanction.
Someone get screenshots for posterity.

Seriously.

I equally seriously see absolutely no reason why they might ever be needed. I do not envision TR going the way of IIDB. However, I also never suspected posts, let alone official announcements, might be binned wholesale there either.

I'm on the 'inside', as it were. So someone else ought to do it. Get those screenshots.

[His Noodly Appendage]

http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~jbc/tr_barndoor.jpg

What?
:D

[Garnet]

Can we PUHLEEZE get the rep or thanks or whateverthefuck button installed????

[Octavia]

*glares at HNA*

;)

[Pavlov's Dog]

Just as a matter of interest, for those who aren't mods or admins, what do you think we talk about in private fora and what do you assume the structure is like?

I assume you guys gossip about posters and play internet psychologist. Maybe posts like this about Mason:

I tend to agree with BL. He's in a horrible home situation, school isn't much better. One day he is going to need someone, and I don't like cutting off access to where he can get it.

Well, I basically told him what would happen last night. He feigns indifference. Obviously, he expends all of that effort because he "doesn't care."

Thanks BL.

That confession seals his fate from where I stand. It is obvious to me that Mason has some sort of mental issues. But I see no reason we should be his punching bag to take out his frustrations on. We've done him no wrong and we have a great forum to build. He wants to be suspended and I vote we give it to him on a silver platter.

(my emphasis)

This is just my guess about what type of bullshit a bunch of dimwitted soccer moms and dads would do in a private club house on the internet where no one can openly call them on their obvious bullshit. Something like this would never happen on talk rational.

Especially RexT. That clown is a couple of cans short of a six pack, and he has the nerve to say that Mason has mental issues.

[Jet Black]

for anyone interested. Mason was suspended, and a mess up in the user permissions gave him access to the Staff Forum which is where all that fascinating stuff came from.

[Pavlov's Dog]

for anyone interested. Mason was suspended, and a mess up in the user permissions gave him access to the Staff Forum which is where all that fascinating stuff came from.

What? That is real? I am shocked. I thought that was just from Mason's overactive imagination. I hear he has mental issues.

[BWE]

for anyone interested. Mason was suspended, and a mess up in the user permissions gave him access to the Staff Forum which is where all that fascinating stuff came from.

What? That is real? I am shocked. I thought that was just from Mason's overactive imagination. I hear he has mental issues.

You hear that from the voices in your head?
:)

Anyway, I missed Mason's info. Foetunately, I ahve almost no interest in what the admin staff talk about.

[Pendaric]

<Post moved to Random Junk in TCR>

[umop apisdn w,I]

<Second post moved to Random Junk in TCR>

Pavlov's Dog - if you post something and it gets split out for being inflammatory and not contributing to the thread, do not immediately re-post it.

[Pavlov's Dog]

<Second post moved to Random Junk in TCR>

Pavlov's Dog - if you post something and it gets split out for being inflammatory and not contributing to the thread, do not immediately re-post it.

Why don't you talk about it in your secret thread with the rest of your butt buddies? No need to post it out in the open.

[Pavlov's Dog]

<Second post moved to Random Junk in TCR>

Pavlov's Dog - if you post something and it gets split out for being inflammatory and not contributing to the thread, do not immediately re-post it.

Why don't you talk about it in your secret thread with the rest of your butt buddies? No need to post it out in the open.

Also, how is my post any more inflammatory or any less contributing to the thread than the one I quoted? You guys are fucking jokes in your biases and hypocrisy.

[deadman_932]

I think Pavlov's is tangentially making a valid point about something that I mentioned earlier -- the need for transparency that at least stems the natural human tendencies of irrelevant idle speculation, coalition formation and group-think.

I'll repeat: one of the primary complaints that people *leaving* IIDB had was that they were not allowed to see/publicize the inner workings. This created serious problems.

I will repeat again: Transparency may be work-intensive, especially with redaction, BUT...

1) Transparency helps to prevent idle chit-chat. It enforces greater professionalism.

2.) It stems user fears and the growth of user paranoia.

3.) It discourages quid-pro-quo "alliances" that can be discerned from patterns of cooperation between mods and admins (personally, this is my favorite point).

I see all of the things I just listed as being good. I'd hope the issue does not just get dropped. I like my ememies, I know EXACTLY where I stand with them. What is truly threatening is the false friend. The only people that can hurt me are the ones I allow to get close enough to do so, which is one of the many reasons why I don't form easy friendships or establish emotional attachments to institutions like bulletin boards. I have no illusions about "community."

All I am asking is that *if* you REALLY want to establish something more than what you had before...you'd better remember the complaints and issues raised in other settings -- they were many of your own complaints.

[Octavia]

^Totally agree. I would like to see us more open than we are now - it's just finding a way to do it that balances needs best. We've made a start with the whistle-blower policy, and hopefully today we'll have the ombudsman stuff up, so that people will be free to vote one in.

[Pavlov's Dog]

^Totally agree. I would like to see us more open than we are now - it's just finding a way to do it that balances needs best. We've made a start with the whistle-blower policy, and hopefully today we'll have the ombudsman stuff up, so that people will be free to vote one in.

Well the whistleblower policy doesn't seem like such a hot idea, seeing as how everyone in the staff forum are just backslappers. And you will probably end up with another backslapper an ombudsman, so that isn't going to help.

[deadman_932]

No one thing is *the* remedy, I'd stress. There have to be complimentary & appropriate checks and balances from top to bottom.

Things can't be done overnight, so I'm in no hurry. I especially can't complain since I'm not offering my time and effort, just commentary. I almost wish I hadn't made a commitment to not being part of an " inside structure," really. Anyhoo, I'm just glad that people want to give more thought to it than what I've seen previously in many forums.

In short, I salute what I've seen, mostly, so far -- minor (and honestly, expected) transgressions notwithstanding.

[DMB]

^Totally agree. I would like to see us more open than we are now - it's just finding a way to do it that balances needs best. We've made a start with the whistle-blower policy, and hopefully today we'll have the ombudsman stuff up, so that people will be free to vote one in.

Well the whistleblower policy doesn't seem like such a hot idea, seeing as how everyone in the staff forum are just backslappers. And you will probably end up with another backslapper an ombudsman, so that isn't going to help.

Your definition of a "backslapper" would appear to be anyone who doesn't agree with you. I think you ignore the fact that in any group it is possible for a particular subset to agree on one thing, but it is not usually the identical subset who agree on something else.

[Oolon Colluphid]

Just as a matter of interest, for those who aren't mods or admins, what do you think we talk about in private fora and what do you assume the structure is like?

I assume you guys gossip about posters and play internet psychologist. Maybe posts like this about Mason:

I tend to agree with BL. He's in a horrible home situation, school isn't much better. One day he is going to need someone, and I don't like cutting off access to where he can get it.

Well, I basically told him what would happen last night. He feigns indifference. Obviously, he expends all of that effort because he "doesn't care."

Thanks BL.

That confession seals his fate from where I stand. It is obvious to me that Mason has some sort of mental issues. But I see no reason we should be his punching bag to take out his frustrations on. We've done him no wrong and we have a great forum to build. He wants to be suspended and I vote we give it to him on a silver platter.

(my emphasis)

This is just my guess about what type of bullshit a bunch of dimwitted soccer moms and dads would do in a private club house on the internet where no one can openly call them on their obvious bullshit.
You'd rather we just banned him outright for being an obnoxious prick?

Get a fucking grip. What the blue fuck do you expect us to do, when faced with someone being disruptive?

Bad dog! Back in your basket!

[Jet Black]

Well the whistleblower policy doesn't seem like such a hot idea, seeing as how everyone in the staff forum are just backslappers. And you will probably end up with another backslapper an ombudsman, so that isn't going to help.

this is pretty much evidently a load of crap, as you have already seen staff disagreeing with each other here (I disagreed with Rex on the idea that you were a troll for example), We both know Oolon is not afraid to speak his mind, and the very fact that we had at least one whistleblower at IIDB revealing staff forum and admin PM information, possibly more who could very well be on staff now (I don't know who it was but you might).

[JCL]

^Totally agree. I would like to see us more open than we are now - it's just finding a way to do it that balances needs best. We've made a start with the whistle-blower policy, and hopefully today we'll have the ombudsman stuff up, so that people will be free to vote one in.

Well the whistleblower policy doesn't seem like such a hot idea, seeing as how everyone in the staff forum are just backslappers. And you will probably end up with another backslapper an ombudsman, so that isn't going to help.

Just from a lurker’s view of all of this. Pavlov, did you read the thread or are you just spouting off because that is what you do everywhere?

There were several disagreements throughout the thread, you may have missed them since it did not result in cussing, flaming, ALL CAPS, and other juvenile BS. This can be held up as a rather idealized example of how a discussion should go.

If you would like your suggestions and input to be taken seriously in this experiment in openness, please don’t become the reason these discussion need to be held behind closed doors.

[Pavlov's Dog]

You'd rather we just banned him outright for being an obnoxious prick?

Get a fucking grip. What the blue fuck do you expect us to do, when faced with someone being disruptive?

Bad dog! Back in your basket!

I have no problem with you banning Mason, and I never state I did. RIF. I do have a problem with staff using the private forum to gossip like a bunch of old ladies in a sewing circle.

[DMB]

You'd rather we just banned him outright for being an obnoxious prick?

Get a fucking grip. What the blue fuck do you expect us to do, when faced with someone being disruptive?

Bad dog! Back in your basket!

I have no problem with you banning Mason, and I never state I did. RIF. I do have a problem with staff using the private forum to gossip like a bunch of old ladies in a sewing circle.

That's your take on what happened. I think it's ludicrous. You must live in a world where the concept of compassion is quite alien.

[Pavlov's Dog]

You'd rather we just banned him outright for being an obnoxious prick?

Get a fucking grip. What the blue fuck do you expect us to do, when faced with someone being disruptive?

Bad dog! Back in your basket!

I have no problem with you banning Mason, and I never state I did. RIF. I do have a problem with staff using the private forum to gossip like a bunch of old ladies in a sewing circle.

That's your take on what happened. I think it's ludicrous. You must live in a world where the concept of compassion is quite alien.

Is it compassionate to say that someone has a mental illness with no basis? You are seriously fucking clueless if you think that RexT was being fucking compassionate. Also, was it compassion that lead people to call me a moron and an asshole in the private thread? Get a fucking clue.

[Jet Black]

I have no problem with you banning Mason, and I never state I did. RIF. I do have a problem with staff using the private forum to gossip like a bunch of old ladies in a sewing circle.

That's your take on what happened. I think it's ludicrous. You must live in a world where the concept of compassion is quite alien.

Is it compassionate to say that someone has a mental illness with no basis? You are seriously fucking clueless if you think that RexT was being fucking compassionate. Also, was it compassion that lead people to call me a moron and an asshole in the private thread? Get a fucking clue.

That's being a bit selective. RexT's comment asside, can you see how others' comments... I think it was Bright Life and Octavia's... could be borne out of compassion?

[Pavlov's Dog]

That's your take on what happened. I think it's ludicrous. You must live in a world where the concept of compassion is quite alien.

Is it compassionate to say that someone has a mental illness with no basis? You are seriously fucking clueless if you think that RexT was being fucking compassionate. Also, was it compassion that lead people to call me a moron and an asshole in the private thread? Get a fucking clue.

That's being a bit selective. RexT's comment asside, can you see how others' comments... I think it was Bright Life and Octavia's... could be borne out of compassion?

Yes, and I have said as much. So, it is not as selective as you are making it out to be, and their compassion in no way negates what RexT said, or what was said about me in my thread.

[DMB]

I have no problem with you banning Mason, and I never state I did. RIF. I do have a problem with staff using the private forum to gossip like a bunch of old ladies in a sewing circle.

That's your take on what happened. I think it's ludicrous. You must live in a world where the concept of compassion is quite alien.

Is it compassionate to say that someone has a mental illness with no basis? You are seriously fucking clueless if you think that RexT was being fucking compassionate. Also, was it compassion that lead people to call me a moron and an asshole in the private thread? Get a fucking clue.
You were discussing Mason's case, not yours. I can see no reason why you should evoke compassion in anyone's breast. And as I have just pointed out on another one of your sounding-off threads, you keep on misquoting Rex. It doesn't go all that well when discussing other people's integrity.

And no, I don't particularly think that Rex was being compassionate, but I think Octavia and BL were.

[Pavlov's Dog]

That's your take on what happened. I think it's ludicrous. You must live in a world where the concept of compassion is quite alien.

Is it compassionate to say that someone has a mental illness with no basis? You are seriously fucking clueless if you think that RexT was being fucking compassionate. Also, was it compassion that lead people to call me a moron and an asshole in the private thread? Get a fucking clue.
You were discussing Mason's case, not yours. I can see no reason why you should evoke compassion in anyone's breast. And as I have just pointed out on another one of your sounding-off threads, you keep on misquoting Rex. It doesn't go all that well when discussing other people's integrity.

And no, I don't particularly think that Rex was being compassionate, but I think Octavia and BL were.

And as I pointed out, I am not misquoting. You can see the exact quote in this thread. It is still gossip no matter how you try to twist it.

[David M]

True again. Having a Freedom of Information Act-type revealing of staff actions won't prevent staff fuckups. But if TR is to be some analog of a republic, then we members need to be able to ultimately see exactly what the staff (=government) has done in our name. And if the majority then want to change things, we can make our will known.

Also, I suspect that just knowing that what you officials post will at some point become visible to those over whom you exercise authority, will help prevent some sorts of screwups.

If your purpose is to allow inspection of the exercise of authority I would think that the most vital factor would be the timely publication of any exercise of authority. That doesn't really need to include the discussion but must include the original problem, the action taken and its justification.

Discussion by the members of the decision must be allowed to support the possibilty of people being held accountable for their actions if the membership deem in necessary. This would satisy what is the primary concern of many, that abuse of power be identified and raised as a concern.

Opening the closed posts 6 months after the fact is not likely to contribute anything positive if a method for immediate examination of actions by mods and admins exists and to be honest only those things that have resulted in changes/disciplinary action need to be examined by the community, in general, given the freethinking philosophy here a decision that no rules have been broken is likely indication that the system is working as intended (especially as the original complainant can see that thread and would retain the whistleblower option if they feel there is personal bias to protect a friend for instance).

It allows those in the admin forum the freedom to post honestly but in the full knowledge that their actions are open to scrutiny while stopping any dredging up of possible motivations 6 months after the fact. Motivations should not be what is most important, correct exercise of authority based on the facts of the case should be the primary consideration.

[Jet Black]

Is it compassionate to say that someone has a mental illness with no basis? You are seriously fucking clueless if you think that RexT was being fucking compassionate. Also, was it compassion that lead people to call me a moron and an asshole in the private thread? Get a fucking clue.

That's being a bit selective. RexT's comment asside, can you see how others' comments... I think it was Bright Life and Octavia's... could be borne out of compassion?

Yes, and I have said as much. So, it is not as selective as you are making it out to be, and their compassion in no way negates what RexT said, or what was said about me in my thread.

I haven't actually seen you acknowledge that anywhere else. fair enough then. I agree that the presence of compassion does not make everything compassion.

[Jet Black]

True again. Having a Freedom of Information Act-type revealing of staff actions won't prevent staff fuckups. But if TR is to be some analog of a republic, then we members need to be able to ultimately see exactly what the staff (=government) has done in our name. And if the majority then want to change things, we can make our will known.

Just to be nitpicky about this, a republic is not synonymous with a democracy. A republic simply means that rather than in a monarchy for example, the people or a subset of the people are responsible for governance and have an impact on governance. The Roman Republic for example didn't have elections as far as I am aware.

[Pavlov's Dog]

That's being a bit selective. RexT's comment asside, can you see how others' comments... I think it was Bright Life and Octavia's... could be borne out of compassion?

Yes, and I have said as much. So, it is not as selective as you are making it out to be, and their compassion in no way negates what RexT said, or what was said about me in my thread.

I haven't actually seen you acknowledge that anywhere else. fair enough then. I agree that the presence of compassion does not make everything compassion.


Who's been burned, and by what action? You're claiming there's been a fuck-up, but I don't see it. Can you provide some sort of argument about why any of the actions taken were wrong?

Have you been paying attention? Gossiping about users in the private forum is a fuck up. At least one of the staff has already apologized, and her offense was probably with the best of intentions, and actually may have been relevant. RexT's comment was baseless, and totally irrelevant gossip.

(emphasis added)

http://www.talkrational.org/showpost.php?p=25201&postcount=57

[VoxRat]

The Roman Republic for example didn't have elections as far as I am aware.I believe it did.

Think: Coriolanus (OK, he's fictional)
Think: Gracchi

[David M]

Just as a matter of interest, for those who aren't mods or admins, what do you think we talk about in private fora and what do you assume the structure is like?

I assume you guys gossip about posters and play internet psychologist. Maybe posts like this about Mason:

I tend to agree with BL. He's in a horrible home situation, school isn't much better. One day he is going to need someone, and I don't like cutting off access to where he can get it.

Well, I basically told him what would happen last night. He feigns indifference. Obviously, he expends all of that effort because he "doesn't care."

Thanks BL.

That confession seals his fate from where I stand. It is obvious to me that Mason has some sort of mental issues. But I see no reason we should be his punching bag to take out his frustrations on. We've done him no wrong and we have a great forum to build. He wants to be suspended and I vote we give it to him on a silver platter.

(my emphasis)

This is just my guess about what type of bullshit a bunch of dimwitted soccer moms and dads would do in a private club house on the internet where no one can openly call them on their obvious bullshit. Something like this would never happen on talk rational.

Especially RexT. That clown is a couple of cans short of a six pack, and he has the nerve to say that Mason has mental issues.


None of this is Gossip PD, its relevant the case under discussion which is what would be the appropriate reponse to Mason's trolling. Octavia's post seems to be based solely on what Mason has revealed about himself and asks for compassionate treatment, Bright Life's comment is based on Mason's reaction and this thus completely relevant - if someone feigns indifference to a warning it is very unlikely that they will clean up their act based solely on another warning. Rex T's post is armchair psychology and a personal view but that does not make his motivations automatically invalid. It is no different than saying "its obvious to me that Mason gets off on being a disruptive asshole - he just plain enjoys getting people riled up which is not the type of activity we want to condone here", even if you don't like the way he stated it the comment remain relevent to the case under discussion and therefore not gossip.

I did study psychology at university and my armchair assesment (which is all anyone can give over the internet) is that Mason does have some issues related to authority and conformance with rules (his implied "I don't care, ban me then" position supports this), this is not a problem at RnR but is a problem here where there are rules against trolling. In the same vein I think that you may have some current issues with anger management - in the posts relating to these issues you seem overly quick to respond to those who disagree with you with hostility and profanity (and repeatedly do this) and then to revel in this behaviour, I say current issues as you yourself characterize your previous behaviour as different.

[Pavlov's Dog]

None of this is Gossip PD, its relevant the case under discussion which is what would be the appropriate reponse to Mason's trolling.

Yes, some of it is. We already went through this, including some of your comrades breaking out the dictionary for definitions.

I did study psychology at university and my armchair assesment (which is all anyone can give over the internet) is that Mason does have some issues related to authority and conformance with rules (his implied "I don't care, ban me then" position supports this), this is not a problem at RnR but is a problem here where there are rules against trolling. In the same vein I think that you may have some current issues with anger management - in the posts relating to these issues you seem overly quick to respond to those who disagree with you with hostility and profanity (and repeatedly do this) and then to revel in this behaviour, I say current issues as you yourself characterize your previous behaviour as different.

I also have a degree in psychology from a university, and I disagree.

[RBH]

And I've got a Ph.D. in psychology, but I'm not going to indulge in internet diagnosis except in critical situations, e.g.,. suicide threads.

[DMB]

The Roman Republic for example didn't have elections as far as I am aware.I believe it did.

Think: Coriolanus (OK, he's fictional)
Think: Gracchi

Those elections to which you refer were from oligarchical candidates.

[Preno]

And I've got a Ph.D. in psychology, but I'm not going to indulge in internet diagnosis except in critical situations, e.g.,. suicide threads.http://www.vocinelweb.it/faccine/fattedanoi/donia/01.gif

[Pavlov's Dog]

And I've got a Ph.D. in psychology, but I'm not going to indulge in internet diagnosis except in critical situations, e.g.,. suicide threads.

This is the best philosophy. But I don't have a degree in philosophy.

[Wordy]

Just for the record. I spent 6 hours yesterday and some 12 hours today participating here with short breaks to eat food and to talk to my neighbor.

This can go on forever. Should we decide now or what are we waiting for to happen first? Consensus? :)

EDIT. Used wrong word. Suggest, non-Admins and Non-Mod has not vote could only suggest.

[David M]

None of this is Gossip PD, its relevant the case under discussion which is what would be the appropriate reponse to Mason's trolling.

Yes, some of it is. We already went through this, including some of your comrades breaking out the dictionary for definitions.

Nope you haven't established that any of the recently quoted statements were gossip.

In your post http://www.talkrational.org/showthread.php?p=24379#post24379 the following was said:

"Yes it was. Thank you. In fact, let's go to the dictionary for the definition of idle.

Quote:
Lacking substance, value, or basis. "

Presenting an opinion, however unpalatable it may be to you, that is on the subject at hand is not lacking value. So not idle talk but relevant talk.

Gossip is talking about someone where it is not relevant. Stating a point of view about the person whose very actions are under discussion is not gossip it is a direct contribution to the discussion at hand. Even revealing personal information (such as details of someone's home life) in such circumstances is not gossip if it has been revealed by that person previously, its out in the public eye already so is not private or secret information.

The reason that people broke out the dictionary definitions is that you are using the term incorrectly.

[Pavlov's Dog]

Presenting an opinion, however unpalatable it may be to you, that is on the subject at hand is not lacking value. So not idle talk but relevant talk.

He fucking argued that it was not an accusation, but an off hand comment. Nice try, but too late. It was clearly idle. It lacked substance, value or basis.

[Luis Garcia]

The Roman Republic for example didn't have elections as far as I am aware.

Yeah, they did, although it wasn't as straightforward as our systems (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comitia_Centuriata) these days.

[DMB]

I think PD's comments in this thread have confirmed my opinion that the staff forum shouhd stay private. Does anyone seriously think that even if there were a delay of 6 months, he, or someone else, would not comb through the details and nit-pick about every second word?

[Preno]

How many times and by how many people has it been pointed out that the staff are under no obligation to respond to every objection raised and every comment made?

[Pavlov's Dog]

How many times and by how many people has it been pointed out that the staff are under no obligation to respond to every objection raised and every comment made?

They are going to keep ignoring that one, lest they lose their playground.

[Pavlov's Dog]

I think PD's comments in this thread have confirmed my opinion that the staff forum shouhd stay private. Does anyone seriously think that even if there were a delay of 6 months, he, or someone else, would not comb through the details and nit-pick about every second word?

Yeah, I will nitpick words like, asshole and moron and mental issues and other gossip and insults that are inappropriate for the staff forum.

[Wordy]

PD, have I understood you correctly if I took your text here to say:

Not the words they used per se but the attitude those words reveal.

Would it be ok with you if they tried to understand what they see
as disruptive behavior like a temporal frustration that was not that persons
main intent or attitude in the forum but someting caused by forces outside
their conscious will. Like school or home or work related or chemical things
like low bloodsugar level or due to bipolar phases.

Maybe it would still be "gossip" formally but with a more friendly attitude.
Do we really need to be so formally correct? Friendly gossip makes life more humane? No?

I mean if they like that person and feel concern about him/her and wrote like.

He or she don't behave like that normally. Something could have happen to them recently. Should we write a PM first and ask and not throw them out?

A friendly attitude could still be gossip but I would stand such much better than a snarky attitude that show dislike for that person.

I wish for that Admins and Mods showed empathy and not superiority and
not an Us the Elite and them the plebs attitude.

I don't say you really do but sometimes you in the management seems just too sure of yourself.

You give me the impression you think

"You know it all" instead of a more humble attitude of

"Let us try to find out what is really going on!

The above was not serious critics only my bodily feelings of concern showing up.

[VoxRat]

The Roman Republic for example didn't have elections as far as I am aware.

Yeah, they did, although it wasn't as straightforward as our systems (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comitia_Centuriata) these days.
That's because they didn't have Diebold (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0828-08.htm) yet.

[Pavlov's Dog]

PD, have I understood you correctly if I took your text here to say:

Not the words they used per se but the attitude those words reveal.

Would it be ok with you if they tried to understand what they see
as disruptive behavior like a temporal frustration that was not that persons
main intent or attitude in the forum but someting caused by forces outside
their conscious will. Like school or home or work related or chemical things
like low bloodsugar level or due to bipolar phases.


Yes. I already said that even though Bright Life was the only one who apologized her statements were probably appropriate given the context of the thread and the mod action that was going to be taken.

[Wordy]

PD, have I understood you correctly if I took your text here to say:

Not the words they used per se but the attitude those words reveal.

Would it be ok with you if they tried to understand what they see
as disruptive behavior like a temporal frustration that was not that persons
main intent or attitude in the forum but someting caused by forces outside
their conscious will. Like school or home or work related or chemical things
like low bloodsugar level or due to bipolar phases.


Yes. I already said that even though Bright Life was the only one who apologized her statements were probably appropriate given the context of the thread and the mod action that was going to be taken.

This to me give evidence that PD should not be banned. We need such persons here. We only have to find ways to stop his more insulting words.

PD is a good guy when he doesn't feel attacked.

[Oolon Colluphid]

This to me give evidence that PD should not be banned. We need such persons here. We only have to find ways to stop his more insulting words.

PD is a good guy
I agree entirely, Wordy. Problem is...
when he doesn't feel attacked.
...or feels like attacking. When there's an X in the mont