Mandate justification for moderator actions (lock, delete, move, etc.) and that's it

Discussion in 'Site Policy and Rule Announcements' started by Kali, Apr 19, 2012.

?

Do you think this suggestion is a good idea?

Yes. 20 vote(s) 55.6%
No, I'm just a douche like that. 16 vote(s) 44.4%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Inquisitor burner of heretics

    Member Since:
    May 6, 2011
    Message Count:
    867
    Likes Received:
    67
    Trophy Points:
    88
    and thats all well and good but this poll means nothing unless stalin wants it, and since he is busy with school for a few days your just going to have to sit and wait, because use mods can do anything with this until he dose
  2. Kali The World's Best Communist

    Member Since:
    Mar 13, 2012
    Message Count:
    1,168
    Likes Received:
    1,065
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I know the poll won't change anything. I explicitly labelled as 'arbitrary entertainment'. Is there any particular reason you voted no on this? Is there an actual downside to this?
  3. Inquisitor burner of heretics

    Member Since:
    May 6, 2011
    Message Count:
    867
    Likes Received:
    67
    Trophy Points:
    88
    No, i'm just a douche like that
    General Mosh, D3adtrap and Chives like this.
  4. esac1122 Team Fortress 2 Branch Head

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2011
    Message Count:
    1,159
    Likes Received:
    197
    Trophy Points:
    103
    Location:
    Beep boop son
    No, I dont give dead niggas a reason to why I saved the neighborhood.
  5. ironchin Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Jun 20, 2011
    Message Count:
    773
    Likes Received:
    320
    Trophy Points:
    104
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
    For the record, there have been multiple occasions where I've been disapproving of certain staff actions (yes, the current staff, and yes, Chelsea and DutchMasterRace especially). I haven't felt the need to rant or comdemn Stalin and the site or leave in protest like you have, but I'm far from having the opinion that the mods' behaviour has been perfect. But you know what? People aren't perfect, and we should stop expecting that from our mods and focusing on their flaws. On the whole, I believe the mods have done a pretty decent job overall. I thought that all the harmful criticism would end once our and their say in site policy ceased, but unfortunately that doesn't seem to be the case.

    I think this reform would be nice, but not especially necessary. It wouldn't hurt to have it, but I don't think it is as important as you say. Guys, the mods aren't going around and silencing people without reason, and if you believe their reason for whatever action they might perform is insufficient, you can appeal directly to Stalin. I didn't vote no because I opposed this reform. I voted no because Stalin clearly said earlier that he's tired of people telling him how he should run his site. I voted no because I'm fully suppourtive of the Happiness and Smiles Act, and that was designed to end the incessant bickering about how this site is run. Call me a bitch of the staff, whatever. I think the HSA will make the forums more harmonious, so I won't suppourt anything that goes against it.

    You say this new rule would have no negatives. If it were in place however, I can't see it not causing arguments and conflicts, and I see that as a negative. Just like rule and reform suggestions like this are negative.
  6. LeonTrotsky Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Message Count:
    1,816
    Likes Received:
    321
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    Just gonna throw in my two cents here, but I think that it isn' that unreasonable for mods to post the reasons why they lock a thread, at least. Honestly it will probably benefit site management because then people won't immediately come to the PA and be all like: "DUR HUR, DA MODZ DLETED ME THARD! DES CURRUPT!"
    slydessertfox likes this.
  7. Kali The World's Best Communist

    Member Since:
    Mar 13, 2012
    Message Count:
    1,168
    Likes Received:
    1,065
    Trophy Points:
    113
    As a former mod, I'm entirely familiar with this. The mods are people, and they do make mistakes. However, as a former mod, I can also attest to the relative ease of enacting and maintaining fair site policy. This issue, for instance, has no negative consequence. The only reasons to oppose it are if you oppose the people supporting it, or if you actually do hate change. In your case, it's probably a mixture of both. Either way, you're using some meta-bullshit to cover up the fact that there is no rational case to be made against something as simple and obvious as this.
    I can speak from personal experience when I say this is not true. Some mods absolutely will do this. The only reason they don't is because they're on too short a leash, or at least they are most of the time.
    Empiricism does not favor you. This proposal merely codifies an existing practice, one that even the most incompetent of mods supports (or, rather, claims to support). In effect, it would stop abuse in its tracks, or at least make mods responsible for their abuse of powers. Requiring them to post an actual reason when performing an action as moderator is so obvious and plainly good that I simply cannot fathom a reasonable person opposing it. If people are upset at the justification that a moderator gives for an action, then it's likely a bullshit action. In any case, it forces mods to actually stand by what they do (and thus actually act with good judgement), instead of hide behind the anonymity their position affords them.
    Demondaze likes this.
  8. Chelsea366 Retired Moderator

    Member Since:
    Feb 13, 2011
    Message Count:
    6,865
    Likes Received:
    1,923
    Trophy Points:
    183
    Location:
    Gensokyo
    Other than me deleting Kali's reposts (which yes counted as spam, I still stick by that, that the correct course of action was to discuss it with staff instead of reposting the same thing over and over after it had been deleted) after Fey deleted it originally I do not see what I have done that has been so controversial or bad.

    @Kali I have always given my reasons for things so I have no real problem with doing it. As for giving reasons for deleting threads or posts I do not think posting about it is the way to go but I suppose a PM could be sent. However I would like to know how you know that 5 staff members voted no, when you can't see who votes what. Some of us could have not voted at all. I don't particularly care either way if this is enacted or not, I wouldn't have to change much if it did.
  9. Kali The World's Best Communist

    Member Since:
    Mar 13, 2012
    Message Count:
    1,168
    Likes Received:
    1,065
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Don't bring that into this thread. Keep this about the issue at hand.
    Uh, the poll is public. You click the number and you can see who voted for what...
    Then why did you vote against it?
  10. Chelsea366 Retired Moderator

    Member Since:
    Feb 13, 2011
    Message Count:
    6,865
    Likes Received:
    1,923
    Trophy Points:
    183
    Location:
    Gensokyo
    I see, was unaware of that but it doesn't change my opinions. I voted no simply because I didn't agree with it entirely. I agree with posting reasons for locking and moving threads but then we have always done that for the most part anyways.
  11. Kali The World's Best Communist

    Member Since:
    Mar 13, 2012
    Message Count:
    1,168
    Likes Received:
    1,065
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So basically you voted no because you didn't think people would know that you did... Just like how you were always opposed to transparency for the same reason...
  12. Chelsea366 Retired Moderator

    Member Since:
    Feb 13, 2011
    Message Count:
    6,865
    Likes Received:
    1,923
    Trophy Points:
    183
    Location:
    Gensokyo
    My reasons for being against mod corner transparency aren't so easily summed up as just that. I don't give two shits that people can see it or not, I truly did not know that you could and no it doesn't affect my opinions or how I would have voted. The poll barely matters in this case, you said it yourself and I only partially agree with it therefor I will not vote yes. The part I agree with we have an agreement to do already. However I still don't particularly care if it's passed or not.
  13. Kali The World's Best Communist

    Member Since:
    Mar 13, 2012
    Message Count:
    1,168
    Likes Received:
    1,065
    Trophy Points:
    113
  14. Chelsea366 Retired Moderator

    Member Since:
    Feb 13, 2011
    Message Count:
    6,865
    Likes Received:
    1,923
    Trophy Points:
    183
    Location:
    Gensokyo
    In other news, Kali stole candy from an orphan this morning and then proceeded to beat him with a large wad of bills.
    General Mosh likes this.
  15. Unillogical Ex-Admin

    Member Since:
    Feb 6, 2011
    Message Count:
    1,259
    Likes Received:
    230
    Trophy Points:
    109
    Location:
    London
    I voted no because I don't see the need to explain for example why I moved a thread. There are 2 reasons why I might move a thread: 1) reorganising the forums. 2) it was posted in the wrong section & I see no need to give a justification for either when my reasoning is obvious.

    It should be obvious when you carry out an action the reasoning behind it. Locking has diverse reasons of course but I would always give my reason. I think the rule works as a general policy or attitude.
  16. LeonTrotsky Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Message Count:
    1,816
    Likes Received:
    321
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    So... can we agree that at least in the case of locking a thread, giving a reason is beneficial. Also, most mods say where they move a thread, so that's not an issue. However, all this bickering over the topic is exactly what Spencer wanted to avoid with the new site rules: people just going after each other because they don't like each other. Come on guys, let's grow up a little.
  17. NInja_Buffalo Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Message Count:
    1,086
    Likes Received:
    46
    Trophy Points:
    88
  18. RickPerryLover strawberries oh sweet Jesus strawberries

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2011
    Message Count:
    1,990
    Likes Received:
    476
    Trophy Points:
    118
    Eh, I voted yes. I don't think this is too big a deal, its just nice to have a explanation.
    Spartacus and slydessertfox like this.
  19. slydessertfox Total War Branch Head

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2011
    Message Count:
    11,853
    Likes Received:
    1,425
    Trophy Points:
    373
    Location:
    Mars
    What is so bad about having a rule in place that makes mods post a reason for locking? If most mods already do it anyway, like some have mentioned, then what harm could possibly come from making it mandatory to post a reason for locking a thread?
  20. General Mosh Citystates Founder!

    Member Since:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Message Count:
    5,310
    Likes Received:
    668
    Trophy Points:
    193
    Location:
    Scattered to the 4 corners of Earth
    I don't think common members like Kali should be allowed to attempt to dictate to Stalin and the mods what to do. I don't think it matters if a reason is give, our mods don't just randomly lock and delete threads. There is always a pretty clear reason we can all see.
    ironchin likes this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Facebook: