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

[Dano]

Anyone else notice that the Bronzy strike disappeared from the record and that he is back posting.... did the Twitter Campaign work?

 

I think so. Also, the Kickstarter movie is 80% funded with over two weeks to go!!!

 

Dan

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

2. Is it reasonable to go for years without a strike and suddenly get several? Is it a predictable pattern? Yes.

 

--a. If you're an aggressive poster who is often just short of the line, who then trips over it and gets a strike, and

--b. If that person has the personality type that escalates the aggression when held accountable instead of backing things down, then

--c. It becomes likely that more strikes will be issued.

 

Of course, that depends entirely on what the definition of "aggressive" means.

 

And since there is no official definition of what that means, it comes down to opinion. Many people think simply disagreeing with them is "aggressive" posting.

 

 

We prefer instead to work through a series of actions to check their behavior - that can ultimately lead to banning if that is required.

 

If the point of the moderation system is to elicit behavior that conforms to the standards of moderation, then "just below the line" behavior should have been addressed long before the need for multiple strikes issued in a short period of time.

 

So, no, it's not reasonable at all for people to "go for years without a strike and suddenly get several", unless the people who are supposed to be making sure that behavior conforms to stated standards aren't really doing their job, and especially when additional strikes are given as a punitive, rather than corrective, measure. If they really are corrective, reason states that you have to give the recipient the chance to correct.

 

N'est-ce pas...? Surely, this is reasonable.

 

One must be very careful to not take a "superior" view when in a position of authority, as tempting as that might be (and is!), and be unwilling to listen to those over whom one exercises such authority. Reaching conclusions about people that may not be merited is bad enough in equitable relationships, but it is exponentially magnified when coming to such conclusions about people over whom one exercises power. One must always be willing to dialogue with people under their authority, without allowing personal feelings or opinions, or even past experiences, to color, or outright dismiss, what that person may be saying, if they are making an earnest effort to work out differences.

 

Being willing to hear someone out, giving them the chance to air their grievances (regardless of the ultimate outcome) can go a very, very long way. It's amazing what people will do when they feel they're being heard instead of dismissed out of hand.

 

Is Arch guilty of the last two paragraphs, or is this a hypothetical statement?

 

Dan

 

We're just discussing "political" philosophy, here. It is unwise to make direct accusations of those in authority, is it not? It applies to anyone who is in, or has been in, a position of authority, including myself.

 

I've been in the position of having people under me that I did not care for (justly or not), and made the incredibly foolish mistake of not being willing to hear them out because of my personal opinions/experiences about/with them. It almost always results in making enemies, frequently for life. It's a terrible course to take.

 

 

I agree - good stuff. That is why I was a bit taken aback, as I feel Arch demonstrates a fair and even hand in his leadership responsibilities. I've yet to see him succumb to the power grab you described.

 

Dan

 

No one really knows how fair and even handed Arch is except his superiors, and perhaps those who work directly under him.

 

The rest of us only see bits and pieces, and, of course, perspectives vary based on experiences. The experience and perspective of one never invalidates the experience and perspective of another. It is only an aggregate view that tells the real story...but that doesn't change the need for uniform application of standards to all, in every case, and the need to be willing to hear cases on an individual basis...no?

 

You and I never agree on anything...that doesn't mean I think you're always wrong, and I'm always right.

[THE_BEYONDER]

 

2. Is it reasonable to go for years without a strike and suddenly get several? Is it a predictable pattern? Yes.

 

--a. If you're an aggressive poster who is often just short of the line, who then trips over it and gets a strike, and

--b. If that person has the personality type that escalates the aggression when held accountable instead of backing things down, then

--c. It becomes likely that more strikes will be issued.

 

Of course, that depends entirely on what the definition of "aggressive" means.

 

And since there is no official definition of what that means, it comes down to opinion. Many people think simply disagreeing with them is "aggressive" posting.

 

 

We prefer instead to work through a series of actions to check their behavior - that can ultimately lead to banning if that is required.

 

If the point of the moderation system is to elicit behavior that conforms to the standards of moderation, then "just below the line" behavior should have been addressed long before the need for multiple strikes issued in a short period of time.

 

So, no, it's not reasonable at all for people to "go for years without a strike and suddenly get several", unless the people who are supposed to be making sure that behavior conforms to stated standards aren't really doing their job, and especially when additional strikes are given as a punitive, rather than corrective, measure. If they really are corrective, reason states that you have to give the recipient the chance to correct.

 

N'est-ce pas...? Surely, this is reasonable.

 

One must be very careful to not take a "superior" view when in a position of authority, as tempting as that might be (and is!), and be unwilling to listen to those over whom one exercises such authority. Reaching conclusions about people that may not be merited is bad enough in equitable relationships, but it is exponentially magnified when coming to such conclusions about people over whom one exercises power. One must always be willing to dialogue with people under their authority, without allowing personal feelings or opinions, or even past experiences, to color, or outright dismiss, what that person may be saying, if they are making an earnest effort to work out differences.

 

Being willing to hear someone out, giving them the chance to air their grievances (regardless of the ultimate outcome) can go a very, very long way. It's amazing what people will do when they feel they're being heard instead of dismissed out of hand.

 

Is Arch guilty of the last two paragraphs, or is this a hypothetical statement?

 

Dan

 

We're just discussing "political" philosophy, here. It is unwise to make direct accusations of those in authority, is it not? It applies to anyone who is in, or has been in, a position of authority, including myself.

 

I've been in the position of having people under me that I did not care for (justly or not), and made the incredibly foolish mistake of not being willing to hear them out because of my personal opinions/experiences about/with them. It almost always results in making enemies, frequently for life. It's a terrible course to take.

 

 

I agree - good stuff. That is why I was a bit taken aback, as I feel Arch demonstrates a fair and even hand in his leadership responsibilities. I've yet to see him succumb to the power grab you described.

 

Dan

 

No one really knows how fair and even handed Arch is except his superiors, and perhaps those who work directly under him.

 

The rest of us only see bits and pieces, and, of course, perspectives vary based on experiences. The experience and perspective of one never invalidates the experience and perspective of another. It is only an aggregate view that tells the real story.

 

You and I never agree on anything...that doesn't mean I think you're always wrong, and I'm always right.

 

Arch has been as fair & even-handed as possible with the members here.

[RockMyAmadeus]

...but that doesn't change the need for uniform application of standards to all, in every case, and the need to be willing to hear cases on an individual basis...no?

 

PS. This is not just lip service, I really believe what I'm saying, and have learned through experience, sometimes bitter experience, that this is the best and only way to relate to people effectively and for the benefit of all.

 

These are qualities that would make a good moderator, but my application was summarily round-filed.

 

 

Oh well.

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

2. Is it reasonable to go for years without a strike and suddenly get several? Is it a predictable pattern? Yes.

 

--a. If you're an aggressive poster who is often just short of the line, who then trips over it and gets a strike, and

--b. If that person has the personality type that escalates the aggression when held accountable instead of backing things down, then

--c. It becomes likely that more strikes will be issued.

 

Of course, that depends entirely on what the definition of "aggressive" means.

 

And since there is no official definition of what that means, it comes down to opinion. Many people think simply disagreeing with them is "aggressive" posting.

 

 

We prefer instead to work through a series of actions to check their behavior - that can ultimately lead to banning if that is required.

 

If the point of the moderation system is to elicit behavior that conforms to the standards of moderation, then "just below the line" behavior should have been addressed long before the need for multiple strikes issued in a short period of time.

 

So, no, it's not reasonable at all for people to "go for years without a strike and suddenly get several", unless the people who are supposed to be making sure that behavior conforms to stated standards aren't really doing their job, and especially when additional strikes are given as a punitive, rather than corrective, measure. If they really are corrective, reason states that you have to give the recipient the chance to correct.

 

N'est-ce pas...? Surely, this is reasonable.

 

One must be very careful to not take a "superior" view when in a position of authority, as tempting as that might be (and is!), and be unwilling to listen to those over whom one exercises such authority. Reaching conclusions about people that may not be merited is bad enough in equitable relationships, but it is exponentially magnified when coming to such conclusions about people over whom one exercises power. One must always be willing to dialogue with people under their authority, without allowing personal feelings or opinions, or even past experiences, to color, or outright dismiss, what that person may be saying, if they are making an earnest effort to work out differences.

 

Being willing to hear someone out, giving them the chance to air their grievances (regardless of the ultimate outcome) can go a very, very long way. It's amazing what people will do when they feel they're being heard instead of dismissed out of hand.

 

Is Arch guilty of the last two paragraphs, or is this a hypothetical statement?

 

Dan

 

We're just discussing "political" philosophy, here. It is unwise to make direct accusations of those in authority, is it not? It applies to anyone who is in, or has been in, a position of authority, including myself.

 

I've been in the position of having people under me that I did not care for (justly or not), and made the incredibly foolish mistake of not being willing to hear them out because of my personal opinions/experiences about/with them. It almost always results in making enemies, frequently for life. It's a terrible course to take.

 

 

I agree - good stuff. That is why I was a bit taken aback, as I feel Arch demonstrates a fair and even hand in his leadership responsibilities. I've yet to see him succumb to the power grab you described.

 

Dan

 

No one really knows how fair and even handed Arch is except his superiors, and perhaps those who work directly under him.

 

The rest of us only see bits and pieces, and, of course, perspectives vary based on experiences. The experience and perspective of one never invalidates the experience and perspective of another. It is only an aggregate view that tells the real story.

 

You and I never agree on anything...that doesn't mean I think you're always wrong, and I'm always right.

 

Arch has been as fair & even-handed as possible with the members here.

 

That's very nice of you to say that. Everyone needs supporters.

 

[THE_BEYONDER]

 

2. Is it reasonable to go for years without a strike and suddenly get several? Is it a predictable pattern? Yes.

 

--a. If you're an aggressive poster who is often just short of the line, who then trips over it and gets a strike, and

--b. If that person has the personality type that escalates the aggression when held accountable instead of backing things down, then

--c. It becomes likely that more strikes will be issued.

 

Of course, that depends entirely on what the definition of "aggressive" means.

 

And since there is no official definition of what that means, it comes down to opinion. Many people think simply disagreeing with them is "aggressive" posting.

 

 

We prefer instead to work through a series of actions to check their behavior - that can ultimately lead to banning if that is required.

 

If the point of the moderation system is to elicit behavior that conforms to the standards of moderation, then "just below the line" behavior should have been addressed long before the need for multiple strikes issued in a short period of time.

 

So, no, it's not reasonable at all for people to "go for years without a strike and suddenly get several", unless the people who are supposed to be making sure that behavior conforms to stated standards aren't really doing their job, and especially when additional strikes are given as a punitive, rather than corrective, measure. If they really are corrective, reason states that you have to give the recipient the chance to correct.

 

N'est-ce pas...? Surely, this is reasonable.

 

One must be very careful to not take a "superior" view when in a position of authority, as tempting as that might be (and is!), and be unwilling to listen to those over whom one exercises such authority. Reaching conclusions about people that may not be merited is bad enough in equitable relationships, but it is exponentially magnified when coming to such conclusions about people over whom one exercises power. One must always be willing to dialogue with people under their authority, without allowing personal feelings or opinions, or even past experiences, to color, or outright dismiss, what that person may be saying, if they are making an earnest effort to work out differences.

 

Being willing to hear someone out, giving them the chance to air their grievances (regardless of the ultimate outcome) can go a very, very long way. It's amazing what people will do when they feel they're being heard instead of dismissed out of hand.

 

Is Arch guilty of the last two paragraphs, or is this a hypothetical statement?

 

Dan

 

We're just discussing "political" philosophy, here. It is unwise to make direct accusations of those in authority, is it not? It applies to anyone who is in, or has been in, a position of authority, including myself.

 

I've been in the position of having people under me that I did not care for (justly or not), and made the incredibly foolish mistake of not being willing to hear them out because of my personal opinions/experiences about/with them. It almost always results in making enemies, frequently for life. It's a terrible course to take.

 

 

I agree - good stuff. That is why I was a bit taken aback, as I feel Arch demonstrates a fair and even hand in his leadership responsibilities. I've yet to see him succumb to the power grab you described.

 

Dan

 

No one really knows how fair and even handed Arch is except his superiors, and perhaps those who work directly under him.

 

The rest of us only see bits and pieces, and, of course, perspectives vary based on experiences. The experience and perspective of one never invalidates the experience and perspective of another. It is only an aggregate view that tells the real story.

 

You and I never agree on anything...that doesn't mean I think you're always wrong, and I'm always right.

 

Arch has been as fair & even-handed as possible with the members here.

 

That's very nice of you to say that. Everyone needs supporters.

 

 

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

 

 

[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.

[Dano]

 

2. Is it reasonable to go for years without a strike and suddenly get several? Is it a predictable pattern? Yes.

 

--a. If you're an aggressive poster who is often just short of the line, who then trips over it and gets a strike, and

--b. If that person has the personality type that escalates the aggression when held accountable instead of backing things down, then

--c. It becomes likely that more strikes will be issued.

 

Of course, that depends entirely on what the definition of "aggressive" means.

 

And since there is no official definition of what that means, it comes down to opinion. Many people think simply disagreeing with them is "aggressive" posting.

 

 

We prefer instead to work through a series of actions to check their behavior - that can ultimately lead to banning if that is required.

 

If the point of the moderation system is to elicit behavior that conforms to the standards of moderation, then "just below the line" behavior should have been addressed long before the need for multiple strikes issued in a short period of time.

 

So, no, it's not reasonable at all for people to "go for years without a strike and suddenly get several", unless the people who are supposed to be making sure that behavior conforms to stated standards aren't really doing their job, and especially when additional strikes are given as a punitive, rather than corrective, measure. If they really are corrective, reason states that you have to give the recipient the chance to correct.

 

N'est-ce pas...? Surely, this is reasonable.

 

One must be very careful to not take a "superior" view when in a position of authority, as tempting as that might be (and is!), and be unwilling to listen to those over whom one exercises such authority. Reaching conclusions about people that may not be merited is bad enough in equitable relationships, but it is exponentially magnified when coming to such conclusions about people over whom one exercises power. One must always be willing to dialogue with people under their authority, without allowing personal feelings or opinions, or even past experiences, to color, or outright dismiss, what that person may be saying, if they are making an earnest effort to work out differences.

 

Being willing to hear someone out, giving them the chance to air their grievances (regardless of the ultimate outcome) can go a very, very long way. It's amazing what people will do when they feel they're being heard instead of dismissed out of hand.

 

Is Arch guilty of the last two paragraphs, or is this a hypothetical statement?

 

Dan

 

We're just discussing "political" philosophy, here. It is unwise to make direct accusations of those in authority, is it not? It applies to anyone who is in, or has been in, a position of authority, including myself.

 

I've been in the position of having people under me that I did not care for (justly or not), and made the incredibly foolish mistake of not being willing to hear them out because of my personal opinions/experiences about/with them. It almost always results in making enemies, frequently for life. It's a terrible course to take.

 

 

I agree - good stuff. That is why I was a bit taken aback, as I feel Arch demonstrates a fair and even hand in his leadership responsibilities. I've yet to see him succumb to the power grab you described.

 

Dan

 

No one really knows how fair and even handed Arch is except his superiors, and perhaps those who work directly under him.

 

The rest of us only see bits and pieces, and, of course, perspectives vary based on experiences. The experience and perspective of one never invalidates the experience and perspective of another. It is only an aggregate view that tells the real story...but that doesn't change the need for uniform application of standards to all, in every case, and the need to be willing to hear cases on an individual basis...no?

 

You and I never agree on anything...that doesn't mean I think you're always wrong, and I'm always right.

 

Fair enough. My optimism about Arch's intentions and actual results are from my own perspective. A perspective that has yet to be sullied by any act of, "acting superior" without consideration of those he's moderating. It's been my experience that if only his higher ups knew of any nefarious behavior or was under-performing, he'd simply not have the responsibility anymore. That's how my job works.

 

Dan

 

Dan

[MediumLover]

Aggressive posting.

 

I wonder if hitting the notify button would open a wormhole in the very fabric of the boards...?

 

 

When you find out, let me know.

[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

[THE_BEYONDER]

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.

 

Offend?

 

 

I'm just curious about your endgame here. Clearly you have one.

 

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

Fair enough. My optimism about Arch's intentions and actual results are from my own perspective. A perspective that has yet to be sullied by any act of, "acting superior" without consideration of those he's moderating. It's been my experience that if only his higher ups knew of any nefarious behavior or was under-performing, he'd simply not have the responsibility anymore. That's how my job works.

 

Dan

 

I'm not so sure that's how things really work, but again...there's that disagreeing thing.

 

I've often found that, because of simple inertia, people can, and do, "get away with things" much more than they should, for no other reason than expediency.

 

I know that's been true of me, and it's been true of everyone around me.

 

Without getting into politics, I'm sure we can come up with examples in daily life all around.

 

Not saying that's the case, here, just speaking in general terms.

 

 

[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.

 

Offend?

 

 

I'm just curious about your endgame here. Clearly you have one.

 

 

Fairness...real fairness, not the lip service kind...and justice for everyone, benefitting everyone. I'm not saying there hasn't been, but we're all human, and we're all subject to bouts of unfairness and injustice to and by our fellow man. I know I am. Reminders are good things.

 

That's my endgame. No hidden motive.

[THE_BEYONDER]

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.

 

Offend?

 

 

I'm just curious about your endgame here. Clearly you have one.

 

 

Fairness...real fairness, not the lip service kind...and justice for everyone, benefitting everyone. I'm not saying there hasn't been, but we're all human, and we're all subject to bouts of unfairness and injustice to and by our fellow man. I know I am. Reminders are good things.

 

That's my endgame. No hidden motive.

 

A crusader of justice

 

 

[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.

[MediumLover]

Board moderation is biased, blatantly biased.

[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

[MediumLover]

Custom titles.

[Dano]

Custom titles.

 

They are unfair?

 

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.