The umpire is calling strikes..................

[Dano]

How many more months are you going to go on...and on...and on...about the concept of fairness in online moderation?

 

 

I didn't know it wasn't a worthwhile subject of discussion.

 

:shrug:

 

I'm sorry if my posts offend you, but there is a mechanism for bypassing them, if that's the case.

 

I think he's implying what I think I explicitly asked. Do you think Arch is fair?

 

Dan

 

What I think of him is irrelevant. He is the authority here, and what he says, goes, right, wrong, or other. He wields the sword, for the good of all. He must answer to those in authority over him, not to me.

 

If authority, in your opinion, is neither good nor bad, (and also unswayed by what us minion think) then why all the gnashing of teeth about his authority? It then must be, as the young people like to say, what it is.

 

Dan

 

That's not what I said. In fact, that is close to the opposite of what I said.

 

If your thoughts are irrelevant and his power sword-worthy, then what is the point of the Moderator's Manifesto?

 

Dan

[RockMyAmadeus]

How many more months are you going to go on...and on...and on...about the concept of fairness in online moderation?

 

 

I didn't know it wasn't a worthwhile subject of discussion.

 

:shrug:

 

I'm sorry if my posts offend you, but there is a mechanism for bypassing them, if that's the case.

 

I think he's implying what I think I explicitly asked. Do you think Arch is fair?

 

Dan

 

What I think of him is irrelevant. He is the authority here, and what he says, goes, right, wrong, or other. He wields the sword, for the good of all. He must answer to those in authority over him, not to me.

 

If authority, in your opinion, is neither good nor bad, (and also unswayed by what us minion think) then why all the gnashing of teeth about his authority? It then must be, as the young people like to say, what it is.

 

Dan

 

That's not what I said. In fact, that is close to the opposite of what I said.

 

If your thoughts are irrelevant and his power sword-worthy, then what is the point of the Moderator's Manifesto?

 

Dan

 

We're not going to find any common ground, so I'll bow out of this with you at this point. Thanks for your comments.

[Dano]

How many more months are you going to go on...and on...and on...about the concept of fairness in online moderation?

 

 

I didn't know it wasn't a worthwhile subject of discussion.

 

:shrug:

 

I'm sorry if my posts offend you, but there is a mechanism for bypassing them, if that's the case.

 

I think he's implying what I think I explicitly asked. Do you think Arch is fair?

 

Dan

 

What I think of him is irrelevant. He is the authority here, and what he says, goes, right, wrong, or other. He wields the sword, for the good of all. He must answer to those in authority over him, not to me.

 

If authority, in your opinion, is neither good nor bad, (and also unswayed by what us minion think) then why all the gnashing of teeth about his authority? It then must be, as the young people like to say, what it is.

 

Dan

 

That's not what I said. In fact, that is close to the opposite of what I said.

 

If your thoughts are irrelevant and his power sword-worthy, then what is the point of the Moderator's Manifesto?

 

Dan

 

We're not going to find any common ground, so I'll bow out of this with you at this point. Thanks for your comments.

 

You bet! Thank you for your comments. : )

 

Dan

[Thomas Nielsen]

I read on Architects linked-in page that he likes reindeer....and hiking in the woods....

 

 

 

[MediumLover]

And excessive brown nosing.

[MediumLover]

Aggressive post.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Aggressive post.

 

Passive, even.

[porcupine48]

Custom titles.

Love the sigline!

[gyro-1]

clearly some of those that have been here for years and have thousands of posts get the silent wrist slap before the strike

This is FAIR if you think of it as they have spent a lot of their lives reading and posting to make this forum the best there is

On the other hand some post with out thinking just to get attention

I believe Arch can tell the difference and runs a great forum

I have no comment on *Mod 0*

 

[kav]

mod1 you mean?

[Bio-Rupp]

mod1 you mean?

 

You mean mod1

[comix4fun]

Custom titles.

 

 

 

Misread that post and thought you were talking about breast augmentation.

[Architecht]

 

Say the scale looks like this:

 

1 - Universally acceptable post

 

2 - Slightly challenging post, but nothing insulting - maybe a little "wow, I don't get you" attitude

 

3 - Vigorous post - weaves in a little "I have no idea how you reached that conclusion" along with a nice dose of very weakly implied "you must be dumb" or "I'm way smarter than you"

 

4 - Aggressive post - pretty much calling the other person crazy or unintelligent although perhaps in long wordy ways that attempt to mask it, or explaining how much more intelligent and righteous you are - note that this isn't about comparing facts, it's about the attitude invested in the word choice. This kind of post can exist with or without fact comparison. It can be woven right into rational arguments or laced into a refusal to make sense.

 

5 - Attacking post - name calling, complete and obvious disrespect MAYBE light profanity, maybe not

 

6 - No self control - heavy profanity, intimidation, implied threats

 

7 - Unlawful - explicit threats

 

 

There are other dimensions to this - harassment, a history of strikes, refusal to heed moderator instructions to change behavior, etc.. These things are often more about the pattern than the merit of a single post.

 

So, absent the pattern issues, members are pretty much going to be ok with 1, 2, 3. They MAY get warned about 4, but probably not if it's infrequent. They will get addressed for 5, 6, 7 with escalating types of actions.

 

If we add in the patterns - say, for example someone is very very frequently posting as #4 - then they might get called on #4 - especially if it's over and over again at the same people, but probably as a private warning or wrist slap the first time around.

 

But let's say the member frequently post as #3, often as #4 but not incessantly. They are always on the edge of moderator action, frequently being reported and often being reviewed - but still, never quite there. Maybe They'd get a warning if they escalated to posting as #4 frequently, or maybe they'd get a warning if they settled down to 2 and 3 all the time and one day jumped to #5. But they don't. They hover constantly at #4. Then one day they have a bad day and go off on someone and post as #5. They are probably going to get a strike. Even someone without a pattern of posting might go straight to a strike if the particular flavor of the post was bad enough. Then let's say they react to that with a rash of #4 and #5 instead of backing down to 1,2,3. They are probably going to get more strikes as they are moving in exactly the wrong direction.

 

Think Red Hook, Major Khaos, Bugaboo, Hammer - a handful of memorable people have followed that kind of pattern.

 

If someone has had a lengthy PM exchange with me about posting patterns, it's probably an indication that:

 

A. The pattern above or some derivative is happening

 

B. I'm giving second chances instead of just adding strikes or outright banning

 

Usually when that is happening I am, at the same time, getting multiple calls from others for a complete ban, but I'm acting as a buffer / hand brake on the process to make sure it's fair. I'm also usually getting much static from the person I'm talking to about what terrible judgement I have. For the most part, I let that roll off. I generally have allowed people to say things to me and about moderation that would get them banned if they said them to other members - precisely because it is important for moderation to hear feedback - even if it's angry feedback that's exaggerated from someone who feels wronged. There are sometimes kernels of truth in that feedback. This thread itself is an example of the philosophy of giving everyone (reasonable) room to react to moderation. It's the reason why I read threads like this.

 

Beyond that, it's pretty natural for the worst to come out of people when they feel stressed. It would be a shame to ban people who can be good community members on the basis of judging their worst behavior as brought out by being asked to reset.

 

I do, however, look for glimmers of understanding in the midst of the complaining. It is possible for someone to become so adamant in their point of view that they just can't "get along", focus on the comics and post in the 1,2,3 style. At some point, no more time can be spent on the issue when the negatives to the community outweigh the positives.

 

The good news is, I have a pretty thick skin - even if it doesn't seem like it to someone who is being asked to reset. The nature of moderation is that someone has posted something they felt justified to say and you are telling them they are wrong and asking them to please stop that. Reactions to that interaction vary.

 

 

[HarveySwick]

4 - Aggressive post - pretty much calling the other person crazy or unintelligent although perhaps in long wordy ways that attempt to mask it, or explaining how much more intelligent and righteous you are - note that this isn't about comparing facts, it's about the attitude invested in the word choice. This kind of post can exist with or without fact comparison. It can be woven right into rational arguments or laced into a refusal to make sense.

Aggressive posts.

 

Happy birthday!!

[jaybuck43]

I think this is the first time I've seen a wall of text that was posted on the boards that was well reasoned, articulate, germane, and dispassionate. Thanks for posting this Arch.

[VintageComics]

4 - Aggressive post - pretty much calling the other person crazy or unintelligent although perhaps in long wordy ways that attempt to mask it, or explaining how much more intelligent and righteous you are - note that this isn't about comparing facts, it's about the attitude invested in the word choice. This kind of post can exist with or without fact comparison. It can be woven right into rational arguments or laced into a refusal to make sense.

Aggressive posts.

 

Happy birthday!!

 

Butt kisser.

[Dano]

And in this wall of text, I find my posts yesterday about the even handed ness of this board's moderation confirmed.

 

Dan

[VintageComics]

And in this wall of text, I find my posts yesterday about the even handed ness of this board's moderation confirmed.

 

Dan

 

Seeing Cgcmod1 overturn Bronzilla's strike was a very, very rare occurrence.

 

Arch has been exceedingly fair in the interactions I've seen. It's those instances when Arch is not involved that have really caused confusion because other moderators don't have the same style and at least the perception is there that their moderation style has changed and is inconsistent with the way it used to be.

 

I'm curious as to what has changed from when CGC employees and Arch used to moderate directly and now when it seems that CGC employees are not as involved and neither is Arch (unless a big picture question is asked and he replies).

 

[HarveySwick]

4 - Aggressive post - pretty much calling the other person crazy or unintelligent although perhaps in long wordy ways that attempt to mask it, or explaining how much more intelligent and righteous you are - note that this isn't about comparing facts, it's about the attitude invested in the word choice. This kind of post can exist with or without fact comparison. It can be woven right into rational arguments or laced into a refusal to make sense.

Aggressive posts.

 

Happy birthday!!

 

Butt kisser.

I already have a custom title.

[VintageComics]

 

I just saw it.