[cratylus]

The only way I can really know if our moderation is 'fair', 'appropriate', 'just right', 'heavy handed' or whatever is to experience it.

Make me a mod. You'll solve the problem of me being a rebel
(since I'll be inside the walls) and you'll get to feel first hand what
moderation is like, since I'll be every bit as consistent with you
as your mods have been with me.

-Crat

[scandum]

Originally Posted by cratylus I think Lasher might *seem* hypocritical when he, for example, engages in offtopic banter in a thread that has had posts deleted for offtopic banter.

What works for me is to simply not go back any pages, and that way I'll never know one of my posts got deleted, nor get angry, nor have a hissy fit and leave the forum which would leave a lot of people coming here from TIC just to get a sniff of my literal prowess very sad and depressed.

The only thing that is required is for moderators to not delete the steady stream of spam and nonsense I spit forth until it has scrolled off of the last page. And given how everyone here claims to be considerate and respectful, that seems like a small favor to ask for.

Ignorance is bliss.

[Samson]

Originally Posted by scandum I feel you Samson, I truly do, your wisdom is touching. But why practice this grand wisdom within the small boundaries of an online forum? We should do this big, ya know, the real deal. Lets sterilize all trolls, possibly euthanize the worst cases, or just get rid of them all, and the degenerates while at it, in the name of civility. We should appoint me as the fearless leader, and I'd hand out the task of 'moderating' the population at large to a few, possibly incapable, but highly motivated individuals who like to moderate just for the sake of moderating, or simply because they realize the greatness of the work ahead. We'd have heaven on earth in no time. I swear, it'd be the solution to all of man's problems, and even better, when we fix the problem at the root, moderation for all online forums would no longer be required because everyone left would be a sweet and obedient little forum user, the grandest of grand wet dreams of every forum admin. Send me a PM to work out the details?

Scandum, while the humor is not lost on me, the analogy is broken for one very important reason: TMS is not the government and cannot be guilt of censorship in that sense. Nor could it be considered the gestapo for removing posts. TMS is a private entity and is thus not subject to the protections of the 1st amendment. I know. Shocking. But the Bill of Rights was specifically directed at preventing GOVERNMENT from engaging in censorship and other such nasty business. The 1st amendment specifically designed to prevent them from restricting political speech.

A private entity, like TMS, or say... your employer, can restrict what you say, when you say it, who you say it to, and take action to punish you if you violate the rules. Your recourse? In TMS's case, PM the moderator of the forum or the board admins and make your case. In your employer's case, hire a civil attorney and file suit. At least arguing your case with TMS is free

[cratylus]

Got my second vague "warning" in a private message today.

Since a warning implies consequences, I can only assume
I'm being threatened with banishment.

That would be some sad stuff right there, if "patience" were
asked of users but I got kicked for insufficient piety.

-Crat
http://lpmuds.net/banned_crat.jpg

[Jazuela]

See it's like this, craytus. Lasher runs this joint. He gets to make the rules. He also gets to break them if he wants to. He can post, in his own thread, "You all, personally and intimately, suck. And yes I mean you." And he can toggle his thread so no one can respond. He can siteban anyone who opens their own thread to respond. He can shut the whole damned site down if he gets too many people to respond, and he can remove the whole forum, and leave only a banner on the main webpage, reading, in enormous bold, italicized, underlined red letters, "You all, personally and intimately, suck. And yes I mean you."

Is it being a hypocrite? Nope. It's being "the guy who runs the joint." I run my own household. Therefore, I get to make the rules, and I can break them whenever I damned well feel like it, and if you don't like it, you're welcome to get your shrimp scampi for supper elsewhere.

I'm not even intending to imply that Lasher is breaking any of the rules; because a little off-topic banter that is appreciated by EVERYONE EXCEPT FOR YOU is fine and dandy as far as I'm concerned. But again, it isn't my place to decide. Because...I don't run the joint. I'm just a visitor. And if I ever get tired of visiting, I'll take my ball and go home like a good little girl. I suggest you do the same, instead of working yourself up to an aneurism over it.

[cratylus]

See it's like this, craytus. Lasher runs this joint. He gets to make the rules. He also gets to break them if he wants to.

Between you and Samson repeating
this to me, I get the feeling that you guys think
Lasher is in charge around here and gets to
decide how the place is run.

I'd like you to consider that I probably know that,
and that this point is not in debate. Perhaps we
can, you know, get past it.

I'm not even intending to imply that Lasher is breaking any of the rules; because a little off-topic banter that is appreciated by EVERYONE EXCEPT FOR YOU

You may not have realized it, but I was not objecting
to Lasher's tangent. I was pointing out that he is presumed
to have that liberty, while am not.

If we agree that I know Lasher is in charge, and we
can accept that I'm not against the natural flow of
threads tangenting on occasion, then I guess it sounds like
you think I should just shut up.

I don't know how many people you speak for. Let's assume you
speak for everyone, and the consensus is that I should really just
shut up. I guess we can expect the axe to fall soon, then.

On the other hand, suppose there are other people who
have received secret warnings, suppose there are those who
don't mind debating these issues but don't dare incur the
enmity of the admins? I guess they're doing what they should,
too, and just shutting up about it.

If that's the kind of forum TMS is to be, then so be it.
I'll keep getting told by folks like you to keep my place, I'll
keep getting threats from mods to mind my manners, and
eventually I'll just get kicked as being too troublesome, and
the sun will rise the next day and the birds will sing.

So just hang in there, Jazuela. And if it's not too much to ask,
please spell my name correctly.

-Cratylus
http://lpmuds.net/banned_crat.jpg

[Brody]

Crat, you're not helping your position at all. The moderators are trying to handle this with you via private messages. If you insist on trying to use that as fodder for continued griping about moderation of the forums, it's just going to make matters worse for you - and implying that The Man is out to get you isn't helping, either.

I don't think the warnings are vague at all, and neither are the consequences. No one wants to see you gone - you've been a valuable contributor here. But we do have to play by Lasher's rules.

[cratylus]

Crat, you're not helping your position at all. The moderators are trying to handle this with you via private messages.

I appreciate that you're trying to help, and I understand
that the moderation is done with the best intentions.

However, I do not know who is in charge of what, and
who has what authority. For all I know, someone that is
not Lasher sending me private warnings is overstepping
their authority.

I feel more comfortable being chastised in public, where
the cleansing scrutiny of the community can discern
how just my castigation is.

If you insist on trying to use that as fodder for continued griping about moderation of the forums, it's just going to make matters worse for you

Not sure how it could be worse, really, other than
an outright ban. Keep in mind I'm not trying to get
deleted. I'm not trying to get banned. I'm speaking my
mind in good faith and have been doing so in keeping
with what my understanding of the mission of the site is/was.

Now that the rules are less unwritten, perhaps there is
hope for clearer understandings, but I doubt there will
be fewer clashes, because I as a person of good will,
and the moderators as people of good will, differ on the
usefulness and appropriateness of moderation of some
of my posts or parts thereof. It's an honest disagreement,
not a defiant manifesto. And as such, I don't see it
being resolved, because I don't have anything to gain
by compromising my position that the moderation around
here has been out of hand, and I'm just not inclined
to let it slide if it continues to be so.

So I don't see how it gets worse. Looks like I'm on a
rocket sled to bantown, the only question is when.

and implying that The Man is out to get you isn't helping, either.

Sometimes I amuse myself with fiery rhetoric. We are
having fun here, after all, or is this site supposed to be
Serious Business?

I don't think the warnings are vague at all, and neither are the consequences. No one wants to see you gone - you've been a valuable contributor here. But we do have to play by Lasher's rules.

I understand. At some point the moderation team will
get sick of me. I'm sorry for that, because I enjoy participating
here. I think it's right of me to speak my mind on these
points, and I think it's ok that I not go gently into that good night.
You guys will have to decide what kind of site to be.

-Crat
http://lpmuds.net/banned_crat.jpg

[Brody]

While you might prefer public castigation (despite suggesting it was wrong for people to do that to ME in the n00biest n00b thread), the new approach of the moderation team is to try to handle these differences privately rather than having it devolve into a battle of egos.

Lasher can speak for himself on the matter of our authority, but I can assure you that whoever contacted you earlier was doing so with Lasher's full knowledge and consent.

[cratylus]

despite suggesting it was wrong for people to do that to ME in the n00biest n00b thread

I do not see that position espoused by me in that thread.

Was it deleted? I do not remember making it.

Please clarify.

-Crat
http://lpmuds.net/banned_crat.jpg

[scandum]

Originally Posted by Samson TMS is a private entity and is thus not subject to the protections of the 1st amendment. I know. Shocking. But the Bill of Rights was specifically directed at preventing GOVERNMENT from engaging in censorship and other such nasty business.

Well, as a starter, lets not get a moderator's panties in a bunch by calling censorship nasty shall we?

Originally Posted by Samson A private entity, like TMS, or say... your employer, can restrict what you say, when you say it, who you say it to, and take action to punish you if you violate the rules.

I guess I'm one of the few that find it strange that US citizens, perhaps the only nation that allows unrestricted free speech, are so eager to censor whenever a teensy little bit of power comes within their grasp.

Then again, I guess it's much like the situation in Turkey, where separation between state and church is more of a cultural grown tradition long ago installed by a great man, rather than the actual desire of the population at large.

TMS is a community, and being overwhelming American, would supposedly reflect US culture. But instead of copying the freedoms offered by their nation's constitution Americans copy the policies of the mass media they've been indoctrinated by since their childhood.

Despite what your subconscious might believe, words do not cause harm, cannot give you HIV, nor cause testicular cancer. Fortunately that goes both ways, and as I already, more or less, pointed out the actions of the moderators do not cause harm either.

[Valg]

Originally Posted by scandum Despite what your subconscious might believe, words do not cause harm, cannot give you HIV, nor cause testicular cancer. Fortunately that goes both ways, and as I already, more or less, pointed out the actions of the moderators do not cause harm either.

Unmoderated discussion, however, can be less useful than moderated discussion, assuming competent moderation. It's why business meetings, court proceedings, formal academic debates, and the like adopt sets of rules that the members agree to abide by as part of the agreement to participate in that format.

As a trivial example, if someone was spamming the threads with hundreds of Viagra ads per hour, it would be beneficial to the conversation to remove that person. That decision has nothing to do with 'free speech', or fear that the ads will harm viewers. It's merely a method to elevate signal-to-noise, and give the site better utility to its readers.

[scandum]

Originally Posted by Valg As a trivial example, if someone was spamming the threads with hundreds of Viagra ads per hour, it would be beneficial to the conversation to remove that person. That decision has nothing to do with 'free speech', or fear that the ads will harm viewers. It's merely a method to elevate signal-to-noise, and give the site better utility to its readers.

As a trivial example a moderator might delete all messages as well, which wouldn't be very constructive either.

As a more practical example I could point out that some of the most knowledgeable users aren't the most well behaved users either.

The idea seems to be that by pruning the rude, impolite, inconsiderate, and otherwise obstructive users, some kind of Utopian community can be created. While I don't disagree that this is in theory possible, I doubt the selection criteria that are being used. Not to mention that both the argumentation and scientific proof for the claims are lacking. The entire thing is very pseudo-scientific and borderline psychotic.

Looking at it from a historical perspective dictatorships rarely work, especially when the big dictators assigns little dictator to share the load of oppressing the masses.

I must add that having grown up in a relatively free and democratic society it remains extremely exciting and refreshing to experience primitive human behavior carried out with great dedication and vigor in the virtual flesh.

[Samson]

Originally Posted by scandum Looking at it from a historical perspective dictatorships rarely work, especially when the big dictators assigns little dictator to share the load of oppressing the masses. I must add that having grown up in a relatively free and democratic society it remains extremely exciting and refreshing to experience primitive human behavior carried out with great dedication and vigor in the virtual flesh.

You are again trying to equate forum moderation on a privately held site with public censorship conducted by an oppressive government. It just doesn't track. It's not at all the same thing. Apparently the free and democratic society you grew up in failed to make that distinction for you, which is a shame, because the difference is just as important as the distinction between private property and the public domain.

[Newworlds]

You guys calm down, and Crat, please respect the moderators, they are just trying to do their job. As flor Lasher posting we all suck and can't touch this, well, he's already said he wants to be subjected to moderators as well if needed.

I think that we miss the point again and everyone is getting angry about unfair or seemingly unfair deletions of posts. Forums have to be moderated and be done so without much arbitration or it becomes chaos and petty.

[chaosprime]

Originally Posted by Newworlds or it becomes chaos

And we certainly wouldn't want that.

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by scandum Looking at it from a historical perspective dictatorships rarely work, especially when the big dictators assigns little dictator to share the load of oppressing the masses.

Since comparing apples and armadillos is a waste of everyone's time, let's compare apples to apples.

Go find me a popular internet forum (say, one that averages over 200 simultaneous users) that isn't moderated. I bet you can't do it. Even if you happened to find the one odd example of a popular forum that isn't moderated, I will find 10 that are for everyone you find that isn't.

Are they "not working?" If not, whatever standard you are employing for "not working" is about as relevant as using the number of sheep-shearing tools a gas station has as the metric for deciding that a convenience store "works."

From a historical perspective, in other words, the idea that these "dictatorships" (as you call them) rarely work is simply insupportable when it comes to internet forums, which is what we're talking about.

--matt

[chaosprime]

Originally Posted by the_logos Go find me a popular internet forum (say, one that averages over 200 simultaneous users) that isn't moderated.

The obvious ex-example would be Usenet. Did Usenet fail as a forum because of the inability to moderate conflict, language, and topicality, or was it more just the inability to moderate spam? (In the case of actual moderated newsgroups, I'd blame the inability to do post-hoc moderation; having to have a human in the loop before a post can appear is ridiculous.)

[cratylus]

You guys calm down, and Crat, please respect the moderators, they are just trying to do their job.

I believe I have not been especially disrespectful to them. I
have treated them with the same regard as I would treat any
other experienced poster.

I'm not pretending I have to wear kid gloves with them, and
I'm not pretending they require special reverence. They are
people, just like you and me, who've volunteered for a
job they feel is important.

I salute them for that, and I support their desire to help
manage this site in a way that is constructive for everyone.

I also want this site to succeed and provide great value
to its visitors and participants.

I simply differ in opinion with the moderators on occasion.
I am not against moderation. I do, however, think it's been
done to excess to the point of vice, and I feel that saying
so is the right thing to do, and saying it publicly the
right way to do it.

It hasn't occurred to me til now that folks might think I'm
disrespecting the site, or the mods, or Lasher. To me
this is clearly not what I'm doing, but presumably it
looks that way to some people. In my opinion is not
disrespect. It is healthy, part of normal discourse, and
indeed part of what the society I grew up in thrives on.
It's silent acceptance of authority that I would consider
suspect, not vigorous questioning of it. Perhaps this
is what Scandum's semi-coherent posts are trying to get at.

I guess to some people it's looked like I was an anarchist,
to others it looked like I was attacking people, to
others it looked like I'm trying to subvert commercial
mudding, even.

I don't know why this all is. I mean what I say. I am saying
I disagree with the way some things were done, but
I support moderation when it is necessary. Evidently there
is room for discussion on the "necessary" part.

But I have been operating under the assumption that
there *is* room for discussion on such things.

If there is not, then that is my fatal error and it is the
thing I will pay for, I suppose.

But I'm trusting that despite being painted as some sort
of ill-justified agitator, folks can see my motivation for
insisting on airing my grievances is not a play for
attention, not an attempt to usurp power, and not a
vulgar display of petulance. I hope people see that I
wish to express my heartfelt dissent, and that I believe
it is ok to do that until I am no longer capable, because
I truly believe in what I'm saying.

If that registers as disrespect, I guess there's not much
I can do about that. All I can do is point to my history
as not-that-bad-a-guy and hope that folks make the
connection that maybe, just maybe, I actually mean what I
say, and I mean well by it.

-Crat
htt[://lpmuds.net

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by chaosprime The obvious ex-example would be Usenet. Did Usenet fail as a forum because of the inability to moderate conflict, language, and topicality, or was it more just the inability to moderate spam? (In the case of actual moderated newsgroups, I'd blame the inability to do post-hoc moderation; having to have a human in the loop before a post can appear is ridiculous.)

I don't know why Usenet failed (though I can speculate as well) but it failed so I wouldn't say it's a great example.
--matt

[Newworlds]

How about just a modern Forum, but Logos your point is well taken. Any forum that isn't moderated is really just a shout house with alot of the s and the h missing.

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by Newworlds How about just a modern Forum, but Logos your point is well taken. Any forum that isn't moderated is really just a shout house with alot of the s and the h missing.

Yeah. Arguing about whether moderation is a good thing is an inherent waste of time. Discussing how much moderation to have, on the other hand, seems very valid to me.

[Newworlds]

Originally Posted by cratylus But I'm trusting that despite being painted as some sort of ill-justified agitator, folks can see my motivation for insisting on airing my grievances is not a play for attention, not an attempt to usurp power, and not a vulgar display of petulance. I hope people see that I wish to express my heartfelt dissent, and that I believe it is ok to do that until I am no longer capable, because I truly believe in what I'm saying.

I do, Crat.

And yes, I agree with you Logos, the "amount" of moderation and the reasons for it is a worthy topic to discuss.

[scandum]

Originally Posted by Newworlds You guys calm down

I'm perfectly calm, and so is everyone else as far as I can see. Do you have a phobia for conflicting opinions?

Originally Posted by the_logos From a historical perspective, in other words, the idea that these "dictatorships" (as you call them) rarely work is simply insupportable when it comes to internet forums, which is what we're talking about.

What I meant is that it would help if Lasher is more clearly in charge and doesn't allow each moderator the freedom to turn their sub forum into their own little dictatorship with its own set of laws. One dictator either works or doesn't work.

With each dictator added, however, the chance of things not working increases. I think having 1 to 3 moderators tops (one of them being Lasher) works best, especially given there is probably an option to report posts which reduces the need for pro-active moderation.

[Valg]

Originally Posted by scandum What I meant is that it would help if Lasher is more clearly in charge and doesn't allow each moderator the freedom to turn their sub forum into their own little dictatorship with its own set of laws. One dictator either works or doesn't work.

If it helps, we're in communication with one another, and all forums have multiple moderators. That kind of cross-checking largely removes the "dictator" accusation. (As an aside, it's hard to take your posts seriously when this kind of hyperbole keeps surfacing.)

Originally Posted by scandum With each dictator added, however, the chance of things not working increases. I think having 1 to 3 moderators tops (one of them being Lasher) works best, especially given there is probably an option to report posts which reduces the need for pro-active moderation.

You're being rather generous with Lasher's time there, asking him to cover everything. You would also see an increase in response time-- Lasher isn't always going to be near a computer.

[scandum]

From the dictionary:

Dictator: a person exercising absolute power.
Dictator: a person who authoritatively prescribes conduct.

I'm just trying to use the proper word for the proper thing here. I'm aware the word is loaded, but that's only because the media only highlights bad dictators, while neglecting to praise dictators that are doing an excellent job.

The reason why I proposed 3 moderators is so that 2 active moderators can keep things under control while Lasher still has the final say in crucial matters such as banning annoying newbies.

Right now some forums have 6 moderators, and if one of them decides a message is offensive and deletes it there's little the other moderators can do about it. That is, without stirring the pot, which means a lot of trouble that can easily be avoided by turning your head the other way.

[Milawe]

Ultimately, moderation and moderators need to simply have rules for the forums, and I'm sure they so here. It is a judgement call, always, when you moderate, but it's the site owner's decision on who he/she wants moderating. It's not up to the users to dictate how things are moderated.

The rules are set up to shape the community and try to encourage a certain type of behavior. Some communities encourage flame wars and allow for people to disrespect each other. Others don't. It really all depends on what the site admin wants in the community.

In my opinion, Lasher is attempting to make TMS a more friendly place, and if it's not more friendly, at least it's more civil. I, for one, an glad of this, and it's making me give TMS another chance.

[Xerihae]

Originally Posted by scandum I guess I'm one of the few that find it strange that US citizens, perhaps the only nation that allows unrestricted free speech, are so eager to censor whenever a teensy little bit of power comes within their grasp.

Most of the really visible moderation has been done by me, and I'm a UK citizen You may now proceed to decry me as a yank-hater!

[Milawe]

Originally Posted by Xerihae Most of the really visible moderation has been done by me, and I'm a UK citizen You may now proceed to decry me as a yank-hater!

You know, I've actually noticed that some of the most hardcore moderators from various forums in which I participate are from the UK. They usually are willing to take the heat and do the difficult work.

I wonder if it's something in the water over there.

[Xerihae]

Maybe it's all the tea and crumpets

I'd just like to say that I know some people are unhappy with the recent changes regarding the moderation team on TMS, but please bear with us! I think we have a good team in place now and the teething troubles should start dying down now the rules are visible and in place. We're doing our best to make TMS a relevant place for discussion about MUDs that people can feel happy posting to without worrying about being brought down by the trolls.

Now, where did I put my Internet Button of Troll Slaying +5... If anyone finds it please let me know!