Administration/Moderation Changes & New Admin Team Nominations
-
@topspin said in Administration/Moderation Changes & New Admin Team Nominations:
"no poking loopholes".
Pardon?
Oh, I misread. As you were.
-
@bobjanova said in Administration/Moderation Changes & New Admin Team Nominations:
But someone who gets posts removed or accounts suspended should at least be pointed towards the rule they're breaking.
Agreed. That was easily the worst part of this whole mess. I believe very strongly that a person accused of wrongdoing has a right to face their accuser and be clearly informed of the specific charges against them, and receive the benefits of due process and the presumption of innocence. Those are important values in the USA, and by violating them in his monster-hunting, Ben was (ironically enough) behaving in an exceptionally un-American manner.
-
@Jaloopa said in Administration/Moderation Changes & New Admin Team Nominations:
A question on the talk of topic specific mods. Maybe @boomzilla can answer.
Can a category specific mod bam someone (temporarily or permanently) from individual categories?
That can be done by allowing people in based on membership in a group (which an admin needs to establish, but the category mod could "own" the group and be able to add and remove people).
This is what the category privilege interface looks like:
There's another one where you can specify specific users but I believe that all of these privileges are additive not subtractive, so the group thing (i.e., whitelist) is pretty much the only way to do that. Of course, as you see, it's possible that registered users could have read put not write access unless they're in a group, so it's not like the category would need to be completely hidden / secret.
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Administration/Moderation Changes & New Admin Team Nominations:
Your idea: Change the background color of the Garage.
My idea: Change the background color of the Lounge.Oh, OK, I misread you then, sorry. I thought you wanted to change the Salon, not the Lounge (I'm almost convinced this is what you actually wrote but whatever, you've cleared up things for me, that's all that matters).
Still, my argument holds (replacing Salon by Lounge), I personally don't think that the issue is about the Lounge leaking, or even being leaked into (by the Garage), so I don't see what changing the Lounge colour would achieve (I mean, I've read again what you wrote, so I see what you said, but I'm not convinced it would actually make much of a difference).
If we did your idea instead of my idea, it wouldn't be a big deal.
I guess it could at least be tried. But I'm not holding it as a silver bullet, just a little nudge...
-
@loopback0 said in Administration/Moderation Changes & New Admin Team Nominations:
@topspin said in Administration/Moderation Changes & New Admin Team Nominations:
"no poking loopholes".
Pardon?
Oh, I misread. As you were.Sorry, I don't understand.
-
@topspin said in Administration/Moderation Changes & New Admin Team Nominations:
@loopback0 said in Administration/Moderation Changes & New Admin Team Nominations:
@topspin said in Administration/Moderation Changes & New Admin Team Nominations:
"no poking loopholes".
Pardon?
Oh, I misread. As you were.Sorry, I don't understand.
I misread it as "no poking loopback0".
-
@remi said in Administration/Moderation Changes & New Admin Team Nominations:
Your idea: Change the background color of the Garage.
My idea: Change the background color of theLoungeSalon.Oh, OK, I misread you then, sorry. I thought you wanted to change the Salon, not the Lounge (I'm almost convinced this is what you actually wrote but whatever, you've cleared up things for me, that's all that matters).
No, you were right the first time and I derped in the post you quoted.
That said, if people want to change the background of the Garage instead of the Salon, I don't think it's a huge deal.
-
@bobjanova said in Administration/Moderation Changes & New Admin Team Nominations:
@boomzilla said in Administration/Moderation Changes & New Admin Team Nominations:
I'd also say that I'd be against a formal Code of Conduct. That sort of thing always seems to lead to rules lawyering and bad decisions.
Better to have rules lawyering than no rules at all, imo. The community can see when rules lawyering is occurring. But someone who gets posts removed or accounts suspended should at least be pointed towards the rule they're breaking.
It's not that there are no rules but that the moderation is done as a discussion. Typically that's not only done by the moderators around here. Plenty of posters here have no qualms about calling people out when they think they've stepped over a line.
It's not really much different than Clbuttic fails.
-
@loopback0 said in Administration/Moderation Changes & New Admin Team Nominations:
@topspin said in Administration/Moderation Changes & New Admin Team Nominations:
@loopback0 said in Administration/Moderation Changes & New Admin Team Nominations:
@topspin said in Administration/Moderation Changes & New Admin Team Nominations:
"no poking loopholes".
Pardon?
Oh, I misread. As you were.Sorry, I don't understand.
I misread it as "no poking loopback0".
What if we ask for consent first?
-
@topspin said in Administration/Moderation Changes & New Admin Team Nominations:
@xaade said in Administration/Moderation Changes & New Admin Team Nominations:
@topspin said in Administration/Moderation Changes & New Admin Team Nominations:
@Dragoon said in Administration/Moderation Changes & New Admin Team Nominations:
I truly believe that all speech is valid and should never be censored.
Death threats?
Wouldn't you rather an idiot be able to say such things? Rather than not, and kill you anyway?
On here, there's not much support this will garner.
Over in more common social media, we've had this type of thing propagate and escalate into actual murder.Would the murder have taken place in the absence of the death threat?
IMO, yes. Death threats give you a red flag. Otherwise, someone would die without any heads up.
But until we can compare apples to apples and have a real study that isn't comparing completely different cultures with different axioms, we don't really know if death threats increase the likelihood of actual harm.
Speculation, even valid speculation, is not evidence.
-
I'm just going to quietly state as an observer that doesn't hang out here much, that it's disappointing to see the direction things are taking here.
Ben did a good job all in all, and even if certain decisions were more unilateral than they ought to have been, they seemed like well justified decisions to me. The voices that the current sole administrator/moderator/dictator has chosen to elevate over others are frankly concerning.
-
@Polygeekery said in Administration/Moderation Changes & New Admin Team Nominations:
@loopback0 said in Administration/Moderation Changes & New Admin Team Nominations:
@topspin said in Administration/Moderation Changes & New Admin Team Nominations:
@loopback0 said in Administration/Moderation Changes & New Admin Team Nominations:
@topspin said in Administration/Moderation Changes & New Admin Team Nominations:
"no poking loopholes".
Pardon?
Oh, I misread. As you were.Sorry, I don't understand.
I misread it as "no poking loopback0".
What if we ask for consent first?
You can ask...
-
@error said in Administration/Moderation Changes & New Admin Team Nominations:
Also, would you like to be a moderator?
Just noticed this. Haven't thought about it, and I... don't know. Good thing I don't have to give an answer now as we're talking admins right now and not mods.
Though I think there's been a lot of conflation in this thread and it's unclear whether people are nominating admins or mods, e.g. @Polygeekery's post that refers to moderators throughout.
-
I think that the process for selecting moderators in the future also needs to take into account willingness. I remember it being something along the lines of internal admin/mod discussion, followed by a "Good news! You're a mod now, here's (some of) what you need to know" type message. Willingness wasn't really factored in.
-
@abarker said in Administration/Moderation Changes & New Admin Team Nominations:
I remember it being something along the lines of internal admin/mod discussion, followed by a "Good news! You're a mod now, here's (some of) what you need to know" type message.
Yeah, was for TL4 at least.
-
@Rednaxela said in Administration/Moderation Changes & New Admin Team Nominations:
I'm just going to quietly state as an observer that doesn't hang out here much, that it's disappointing to see the direction things are taking here.
Ben did a good job all in all, and even if certain decisions were more unilateral than they ought to have been, they seemed like well justified decisions to me. The voices that the current sole administrator/moderator/dictator has chosen to elevate over others are frankly concerning.
Ben did a good job until 24 hours ago.
-
@topspin Give or take two weeks.
-
@Zecc said in Administration/Moderation Changes & New Admin Team Nominations:
@topspin Give or take two weeks.
That was an honest mistake.
-
Sigh. I just got an unsolicited PM from Ben stating that he's requesting to have all his data deleted from this forum under the GDPR, and subtly encouraging me to do the same. I can't imagine any reason why he would have sent this to me personally, which means it's almost certainly not personal, but a message being spammed to multiple high-profile users.
@apapadimoulis I believe this attempt to be in bad faith, as an attempt to cause damage to this forum:
- As a former admin, he's fully aware of the havoc that deletion wreaks on the community by deleting not only posts but entire topics. And he's started some pretty significant ones!
- Being from America, Ben has no rights under the GDPR, which makes his invocation of it fraudulent.
- Being from America, I have no rights under the GDPR, and I've always been an outspoken critic of it, and particularly of the RTBF which he's attempting to invoke here. And yet somehow he's attempting to incite me to fraudulently invoke it.
- The fact that he's doing this in private messages rather than openly speaks of a campaign of sabotage.
I strongly recommend that any such request be summarily denied.
-
@Mason_Wheeler we definitely should find a way that such deletion only deletes people’s own posts and not entire topics they’ve started.
Unfortunately, Ben used to be the whiz kid to do such surgery.
-
@heterodox said in Administration/Moderation Changes & New Admin Team Nominations:
Though I think there's been a lot of conflation in this thread and it's unclear whether people are nominating admins or mods, e.g. @Polygeekery's post that refers to moderators throughout.
I think that, if possible, we should separate the tasks. At least as far as "removing admins" is a permission granted to a user.
I think that the only person with that permission level should be @apapadimoulis.
If a permission level below that can be created where a person can be "Lord of the Mods" and be the ranking moderator then that should be established.
Basically, remove the possibility of an insurrection like we just saw. Not that I think that @boomzilla would ever do so. I'm just thinking about down the road when he gets tired of this shit.
Otherwise, the only people that I personally am okay with having Admin rights would be @boomzilla and @PJH, and the latter doesn't want to do that anymore.
-
@Rednaxela said in Administration/Moderation Changes & New Admin Team Nominations:
Ben did a good job all in all, and even if certain decisions were more unilateral than they ought to have been, they seemed like well justified decisions to me.
The main issue with Ben's activities wasn't the basis for doing them. It's that he acted without consulting with the site owner, without any kind of notice, without clarifying his actions (beyond, and I'm paraphrasing, "y'all are bigots" and "asking about the rules is proof you want to break the rules"), and concurrent to biased behavior unbecoming a moderator. Had he asked Alex, announced he was becoming more stringent in policy enforcement (Salon/Garage privileges revoked, bigotry not welcome here, enforcement at mod's discretion), posted in general terms about the bans he was making as he was making them rather than hours later and disingenuously, and not tried to play dirty in what was a clean debate, we probably wouldn't be having this conversation at all.
@Mason_Wheeler said in Administration/Moderation Changes & New Admin Team Nominations:
I strongly recommend that any such request be summarily denied.
There's a button to delete an account without deleting any of its content. It's not what Ben wants, but it's the closest that we can give him without wrecking the place, and he's not entitled to anything beyond that.
I am also in favor of an admin team of @boomzilla, @abarker, and @sloosecannon. If possible, I'd also like @Polygeekery and @Mason_Wheeler to have access to any staff area and be key stakeholders in the policy writing process, with as much informational access as the admin team has, but not the ability to carry out administrative actions.
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in Administration/Moderation Changes & New Admin Team Nominations:
Sigh. I just got an unsolicited PM from Ben stating that he's requesting to have all his data deleted from this forum under the GDPR, and subtly encouraging me to do the same. I can't imagine any reason why he would have sent this to me personally, which means it's almost certainly not personal, but a message being spammed to multiple high-profile users.
One possible reason it was sent to you, specifically, was that Ben perceives you as being receptive to his assessment of the situation, namely: that this forum is being taken over by alt-right/neo-nazis/Bad People.
This does not preclude the possibility that other users that Ben thinks would be receptive also received the same message.
Honestly, I find the whole situation not a bit heartbreaking, because I have a lot of respect for Ben and really appreciate everything he has done for this forum.
-
@GOG said in Administration/Moderation Changes & New Admin Team Nominations:
Honestly, I find the whole situation not a bit heartbreaking, because I have a lot of respect for Ben and really appreciate everything he has done for this forum.
Ditto. (I assume the “not” is there in error)
I’m pissed at being labeled a bigot (and never felt he liked me, but he makes it hard to tell), but I’ve always held him in high regard.
-
I'm at dinner with friends, I'll pop in when I'm back home and read all of it.
-
@topspin said in Administration/Moderation Changes & New Admin Team Nominations:
@GOG said in Administration/Moderation Changes & New Admin Team Nominations:
Honestly, I find the whole situation not a bit heartbreaking, because I have a lot of respect for Ben and really appreciate everything he has done for this forum.
Ditto. (I assume the “not” is there in error)
I’m pissed at being labeled a bigot (and never felt he liked me, but he makes it hard to tell), but I’ve always held him in high regard.
"Not a bit" = "a lot"
-
@TwelveBaud said in Administration/Moderation Changes & New Admin Team Nominations:
There's a button to delete an account without deleting any of its content. It's not what Ben wants, but it's the closest that we can give him without wrecking the place, and he's not entitled to anything beyond that.
I do not wish to have my content associated with a website run by someone who would reverse my actions against someone who sent me death threats without asking me a single question, and also claim that my actions caused irreparable harm despite them all being reversed within a period of six minutes.
There are buttons to split and merge threads, which can be used to disassociate my threads from other users' posts within them.
I highly encourage anyone who's confused about this to read @Weng's posts in the discussion thread. I do not feel the current administration is acting in good faith.
-
@topspin said in Administration/Moderation Changes & New Admin Team Nominations:
we definitely should find a way that such deletion only deletes people’s own posts and not entire topics they’ve started.
I noticed that the menu has changed with the update. There used to be a single "Delete Account" option. Now there's this:
I haven't done any investigation other than to read the menu, so I have no answers about the different options. A levicki style delete is pretty harsh, especially if the user has started lots of topics.
-
@ben_lubar Your argument is a fair one, but the tool provided by the software for that purpose is far more destructive than it would first appear. And to be blunt I don't trust Alex or Boomzilla to be able to find every topic you've created, split off the first post, and create a substitute (if needed), among all 27,203 threads on this forum. This is the kind of thing we'd need to commission @julianlam, @barisu, or yourself to do, and that will take more time than I think you would want to give us.
Edited to add: If you want something done today, right now, this instant, the best we can offer is reattributing your posts to be from "Guest". Your content will still be here, but neither it nor the site will be associated with you.
-
@TwelveBaud said in Administration/Moderation Changes & New Admin Team Nominations:
I am also in favor of an admin team of @boomzilla, @abarker, and @sloosecannon. If possible, I'd also like @Polygeekery and @Mason_Wheeler to have access to any staff area and be key stakeholders in the policy writing process, with as much informational access as the admin team has, but not the ability to carry out administrative actions.
That's a good point. It's certainly possible to selectively give users access to the Staff category without giving them any special powers. Do, note, however, that this category includes some IP addresses (the automated crash topic tells us who was affected by each crash) and possibly email addresses (like when reviewing people applying for sock puppet accounts).
-
@abarker said in Administration/Moderation Changes & New Admin Team Nominations:
I think that the process for selecting moderators in the future also needs to take into account willingness. I remember it being something along the lines of internal admin/mod discussion, followed by a "Good news! You're a mod now, here's (some of) what you need to know" type message. Willingness wasn't really factored in.
Expanding on that, I strongly feel that anyone who nominated themselves should be excluded from the running.
Being a moderator should be akin to being a Roman emperor. A reluctant duty that a person performs, not something that they seek out. A reluctant public servant.
Let's just forget what happened with Caesar.
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in Administration/Moderation Changes & New Admin Team Nominations:
The fact that he's doing this in private messages rather than openly speaks of a campaign of sabotage.
Somebody else brought up a CoC and now I cannot help but wonder if this episode is just another part of an industry-wide crusade to purge perceived wrongthink. There is a disturbing movement against the "brilliant jerk" where "jerk" means anybody that disagrees with the unelected thought police for any reason. I would not say our workplaces are sliding left per se, because that's not my understanding of liberalism, but the slide is very frequently associated with hijacked left wing causes. You're not allowed to criticize or even question diversity hires that organizations are loading up on for any reason. This forum was pretty open regarding criticism (the site was founded as "hey, look at this idiot's stupid code" stories) and off-color jokes that, while they didn't actually hurt anybody for real from what I could tell, made a target to be snuffed out for allowing such wrongthink. In my view, caving to unqualified busybodies will turn this profession into the same stagnant swamp of stupidity as political offices the world over.
Nobody asked but I don't want to be a moderator because that thought is always in the back of my mind.
Also, it would be interesting to have forum software that had veto override capabilities. Some percentage of forum posters could get a ban overturned by programmed mechanics. But how do you really stop it when somebody has to be able to see the code/database? The end result is almost always tyranny or abandonment. We were lucky Alex was around to stop this before it really got bad.
-
@TwelveBaud said in Administration/Moderation Changes & New Admin Team Nominations:
@ben_lubar Your argument is a fair one, but the tool provided by the software for that purpose is far more destructive than it would first appear. And to be blunt I don't trust Alex or Boomzilla to be able to find every topic you've created, split off the first post, and create a substitute (if needed), among all 27,203 threads on this forum. This is the kind of thing we'd need to commission @julianlam, @barisu, or yourself to do, and that will take more time than I think you would want to give us.
Edited to add: If you want something done today, right now, this instant, the best we can offer is reattributing your posts to be from "Guest". Your content will still be here, but neither it nor the site will be associated with you.
Here is a list of topics I have created: https://what.thedailywtf.com/user/ben_lubar/topics
You may choose to immediately start going through those and splitting out the OP if you see fit.
-
@TwelveBaud said in Administration/Moderation Changes & New Admin Team Nominations:
@ben_lubar Your argument is a fair one, but the tool provided by the software for that purpose is far more destructive than it would first appear. And to be blunt I don't trust Alex or Boomzilla to be able to find every topic you've created, split off the first post, and create a substitute (if needed), among all 27,203 threads on this forum. This is the kind of thing we'd need to commission @julianlam, @barisu, or yourself to do, and that will take more time than I think you would want to give us.
Edited to add: If you want something done today, right now, this instant, the best we can offer is reattributing your posts to be from "Guest". Your content will still be here, but neither it nor the site will be associated with you.
They're easy enough to find. There are a lot of them, though.
-
@topspin said in Administration/Moderation Changes & New Admin Team Nominations:
@Rednaxela said in Administration/Moderation Changes & New Admin Team Nominations:
I'm just going to quietly state as an observer that doesn't hang out here much, that it's disappointing to see the direction things are taking here.
Ben did a good job all in all, and even if certain decisions were more unilateral than they ought to have been, they seemed like well justified decisions to me. The voices that the current sole administrator/moderator/dictator has chosen to elevate over others are frankly concerning.
Ben did a good job until 24 hours ago.
No he didn't. And this is where I failed the forums. I completely saw this coming the last time that he banned me. After I came back I had a list of things we could do to improve the forums but I never wrote it up and just didn't bring it up. Part of that was because , part of it was because it would have seemed self-serving.
At the very top of that list, and honestly the only thing I remember, was that Ben should be stripped of all mod/admin privileges. Period. He lacks the ability to understand human interpersonal interactions. I saw the god complex coming and an eventual freakout. Unfortunately I was proven correct.
-
@TwelveBaud said in Administration/Moderation Changes & New Admin Team Nominations:
@Rednaxela said in Administration/Moderation Changes & New Admin Team Nominations:
Ben did a good job all in all, and even if certain decisions were more unilateral than they ought to have been, they seemed like well justified decisions to me.
The main issue with Ben's activities wasn't the basis for doing them.
I disagree. Ben apparently has a drastically different view of what bigotry consists of than most of the forum does and tried to shove it down our throats.
I would never be able to post here again under Ben's definition of bigotry.
Other people have posted in this topic about examples of people Ben agrees with saying bigoted things. Fox was around for years despite being an awful bigot.
Frankly, that's fine. I don't want anyone banned except spammers and doxxers.
Ben did what he did because he was convinced that he was right and that the people disagreed with were so wrong that they needed to be banned. I hope that's not the way this forum is going to be moving forward.
-
@Polygeekery said in Administration/Moderation Changes & New Admin Team Nominations:
@topspin said in Administration/Moderation Changes & New Admin Team Nominations:
@Rednaxela said in Administration/Moderation Changes & New Admin Team Nominations:
I'm just going to quietly state as an observer that doesn't hang out here much, that it's disappointing to see the direction things are taking here.
Ben did a good job all in all, and even if certain decisions were more unilateral than they ought to have been, they seemed like well justified decisions to me. The voices that the current sole administrator/moderator/dictator has chosen to elevate over others are frankly concerning.
Ben did a good job until 24 hours ago.
No he didn't.
He did as an admin. Mostly.
Just not as a moderator.
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in Administration/Moderation Changes & New Admin Team Nominations:
Sigh. I just got an unsolicited PM from Ben stating that he's requesting to have all his data deleted from this forum under the GDPR, and subtly encouraging me to do the same. I can't imagine any reason why he would have sent this to me personally, which means it's almost certainly not personal, but a message being spammed to multiple high-profile users.
@apapadimoulis I believe this attempt to be in bad faith, as an attempt to cause damage to this forum:
- As a former admin, he's fully aware of the havoc that deletion wreaks on the community by deleting not only posts but entire topics. And he's started some pretty significant ones!
- Being from America, Ben has no rights under the GDPR, which makes his invocation of it fraudulent.
- Being from America, I have no rights under the GDPR, and I've always been an outspoken critic of it, and particularly of the RTBF which he's attempting to invoke here. And yet somehow he's attempting to incite me to fraudulently invoke it.
- The fact that he's doing this in private messages rather than openly speaks of a campaign of sabotage.
I strongly recommend that any such request be summarily denied.
I agree with Mason, and this even furthers my suspicion that Ben "resigned". That might have happened, but I have a suspicion that he was ousted suddenly and before he could nuke the forums. I was suspicious enough of that happening that I sent messages to Alex and others suggesting that they make sure they have good backups before they do anything because as far as I know the only backups were on Ben's machine. I sincerely doubt that he would not have nuked everything on his way out if he were given the choice and it's always best to cover your ass.
-
@Polygeekery said in Administration/Moderation Changes & New Admin Team Nominations:
@Mason_Wheeler said in Administration/Moderation Changes & New Admin Team Nominations:
Sigh. I just got an unsolicited PM from Ben stating that he's requesting to have all his data deleted from this forum under the GDPR, and subtly encouraging me to do the same. I can't imagine any reason why he would have sent this to me personally, which means it's almost certainly not personal, but a message being spammed to multiple high-profile users.
@apapadimoulis I believe this attempt to be in bad faith, as an attempt to cause damage to this forum:
- As a former admin, he's fully aware of the havoc that deletion wreaks on the community by deleting not only posts but entire topics. And he's started some pretty significant ones!
- Being from America, Ben has no rights under the GDPR, which makes his invocation of it fraudulent.
- Being from America, I have no rights under the GDPR, and I've always been an outspoken critic of it, and particularly of the RTBF which he's attempting to invoke here. And yet somehow he's attempting to incite me to fraudulently invoke it.
- The fact that he's doing this in private messages rather than openly speaks of a campaign of sabotage.
I strongly recommend that any such request be summarily denied.
I agree with Mason, and this even furthers my suspicion that Ben "resigned". That might have happened, but I have a suspicion that he was ousted suddenly and before he could nuke the forums. I was suspicious enough of that happening that I sent messages to Alex and others suggesting that they make sure they have good backups before they do anything because as far as I know the only backups were on Ben's machine. I sincerely doubt that he would not have nuked everything on his way out if he were given the choice and it's always best to cover your ass.
I still have root access to the server. Which I am not using to cause harm because I'm not an incompetent asshole, no matter how much someone who sent me death threats and indeed has a reference to that in their forum signature claims otherwise.
-
@Zenith said in Administration/Moderation Changes & New Admin Team Nominations:
Somebody else brought up a CoC and ...
I have thoughts that are different than yours. But this is neither the time nor the topic. I'll be happy to respectfully spar with you about it once the new admin team is announced and they begin policymaking.
-
So, could everyone stop the focus on which specific individual did what, at least in this thread and keep things productive going forward.
Ehgawds.. I sounded like a manager. See what you made me do!
-
@Polygeekery said in Administration/Moderation Changes & New Admin Team Nominations:
@topspin said in Administration/Moderation Changes & New Admin Team Nominations:
@Rednaxela said in Administration/Moderation Changes & New Admin Team Nominations:
I'm just going to quietly state as an observer that doesn't hang out here much, that it's disappointing to see the direction things are taking here.
Ben did a good job all in all, and even if certain decisions were more unilateral than they ought to have been, they seemed like well justified decisions to me. The voices that the current sole administrator/moderator/dictator has chosen to elevate over others are frankly concerning.
Ben did a good job until 24 hours ago.
No he didn't. And this is where I failed the forums. I completely saw this coming the last time that he banned me. After I came back I had a list of things we could do to improve the forums but I never wrote it up and just didn't bring it up. Part of that was because , part of it was because it would have seemed self-serving.
At the very top of that list, and honestly the only thing I remember, was that Ben should be stripped of all mod/admin privileges. Period. He lacks the ability to understand human interpersonal interactions. I saw the god complex coming and an eventual freakout. Unfortunately I was proven correct.
Oh come on, I laugh at your inappropriate jokes, but last time you got temp-banned (assuming that’s wasn’t another last time you’re talking about) you completely went off the rails with uninterrupted shit-flinging at another admin. That one called for you to take a day off the keyboard.
-
@TwelveBaud said in Administration/Moderation Changes & New Admin Team Nominations:
If possible, I'd also like @Polygeekery and @Mason_Wheeler to have access to any staff area and be key stakeholders in the policy writing process, with as much informational access as the admin team has, but not the ability to carry out administrative actions.
Yeah, remember that whole "reluctant" thing I just mentioned? This would fall under that. I would be very reluctant to do so, but would if the community wants me to.
But honestly I do not see why it needs to be anything more than "Be civil outside of the garage and don't go in to the garage unless you have thick skin. Inside the garage it is almost no holds barred but don't be rampantly abusive."
Users should also make good faith efforts to keep garage worthy content inside of the garage and if they do not want to participate in the garage then don't post garage worthy content. Rhywden was horrible about this. Judicious jeffing should be encouraged for such behavior and if a user pulls a Fox and keeps doing it then maybe a temp ban to let them cool off. But understand that mistakes happen. I have occasionally posted garagey stuff in the general areas because I did not realize where I was at. I think that changing the garage background could help with this as it has with the lounge.
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in Administration/Moderation Changes & New Admin Team Nominations:
@Polygeekery said in Administration/Moderation Changes & New Admin Team Nominations:
@jinpa said in Administration/Moderation Changes & New Admin Team Nominations:
Good to hear from you, Alex. I would like to nominate @Mason_Wheeler. He's probably the most consistently civilized person here (you're civilized as well, but you're not a regular on your forums ) , which would be a nice balance. In addition, he's a Windows guy. Politically, I would describe him as a centrist.
Oh, fuck no. Just no. He is precisely none of those things.
I most definitely am a Windows guy!
-
@ben_lubar said in Administration/Moderation Changes & New Admin Team Nominations:
someone who sent me death threats
Never happened.
@ben_lubar said in Administration/Moderation Changes & New Admin Team Nominations:
and also claim that my actions caused irreparable harm despite them all being reversed within a period of six minutes.
No, because we are up to 243 posts about undoing the damage that you caused and preventing it happening in the future.
@ben_lubar said in Administration/Moderation Changes & New Admin Team Nominations:
Another user who thinks that anyone who disagrees with them is a literal Nazi.
-
@ben_lubar said in Administration/Moderation Changes & New Admin Team Nominations:
indeed has a reference to that in their forum signature
Wow. Just wow.
How do I downvote a signature?
-
@topspin said in Administration/Moderation Changes & New Admin Team Nominations:
uninterrupted shit-flinging at another admin
He wasn't an admin. I don't even think he was a mod at the time. Ben stepped in and went against the grain on how things work around here and banned without warning or discussion.
I wish I could remember where that happened as I don't even think your recollection of it is accurate. I think he was going off on his usual "everyone I disagree with is a literal Nazi" and I was calling him on his shit. I could be wrong though.
-
@abarker said in Administration/Moderation Changes & New Admin Team Nominations:
I think that the process for selecting moderators in the future also needs to take into account willingness. I remember it being something along the lines of internal admin/mod discussion, followed by a "Good news! You're a mod now, here's (some of) what you need to know" type message. Willingness wasn't really factored in.
Back then that was under the presumption that not-terribly-willing moderators who didn't ask to be mods wouldn't get ban-happy etc, and over-eager volunteers who persistently ask might do. Again - this was when there wasn't a lot do do.
Of course, that only applied to ones who were chosen, and not the one or two who promoted themselves into that position without even asking...
-
@Polygeekery said in Administration/Moderation Changes & New Admin Team Nominations:
lolwhat
I like him, we've hung out in real life, but I don't think he is a good choice for moderator. Sorry man, I call 'em like I see 'em.
Right, that's why I was gunning for an admin-but-not-mod role. I realize I likely wouldn't be a good fit for mod.
-
@Polygeekery said in Administration/Moderation Changes & New Admin Team Nominations:
Another user who thinks that anyone who disagrees with them is a literal Nazi.
Okay fuck right off with that.
I am literally a non-factor in this toxic echochamber and have zero interest in being one.
You guys won. Now leave me the hell out of it.