Moderator #3: call for nominations

[Tannin]

It's time to select a moderator again. So far we have chosen:

First Moderator
18 month term, 1st January 2001 to 30th June 2003: Flagreen

Second Moderator
18 month term, 1st April 2001 to 30th September 2003: Mercutio

The third moderator will serve the usual 18 month term and be appointed on 1st July. My successor as Chairman will appoint the final two moderators on 1st October this year and 1st January 2003. Any Storage Forum member is eligable, excepting only Flagreen and Mercutio (who are already moderators) and Handruin (who, as Webmaster, has super-moderator powers already).

A moderator needs to be a reasonably frequent visitor here, needs to be fair-minded and commited to free speech, wise enough to know when it's best to just do nothing, but still strong enough to take action when it's needed.

While it is the Admin Team that is responsible for Storage Forum, all members are entitled to have their say in matters of this nature, which is why I am calling for nominations here, rather than in the private admin forum.

Your nominations please gentlemen......

 

[Mercutio]

If I may, I'd also suggest that perhaps a non-US resident get the nod this time. I'm up entirely too often during the middle of the Aussie day but keeping miscreants like James at bay probably requires someone who *isn't* being deprived of sleep to do it.

time? Pradeep? Jake?

 

[CougTek]

I propose our Bartender.

 

[Mercutio]

I'd second that one, too.

 

[James]

Why not DB?

 

[Buck]

I propose an Aussie too. Time, Pradeep, or Jake the Dog.

 

[Bartender]

Thank you for your votes, but I am only a bartender. I will most likely miss something related to warez and mistakenly edit what the group considers appropriate speech.

 

[flagreen]

Thank you for your votes, but I am only a bartender. I will most likely miss something related to warez and mistakenly edit what the group considers appropriate speech.

Most likely you'll never have to do a thing. Give it a shot. Come to think of it, give me a shot too. Wiskey if you please.

 

[NRG = mc²]

I'd gratefully do it, but unfortunately from this Saturday till early September I won't be online (or at the computer) for more than a few minutes a day.

Unless you don't mind :lol:

 

[Bartender]

How about electing two moderators for a given period of time - preferably in contrasting time zones. Plus, I would reduce the time period from 18 months down to 6 months. This may make moderator election easier and moderation more consistent. Then again, our traffic may not justify so much control.

 

[James]

I don't think it does either. Plus elections every 6 months seems more likely to annoy the membership than improve quality of moderation (given we've been running for over six months already and have had the sum total of ... hmmm... let me see... one... errrr... one moderation event, and a provoked one at that).

 

[Tannin]

STUPID BLOODY CAT! I just lost an entire long post.

 

[Tannin]

Shall we try again then?

It seems a little late to start complaining about the moderator appointment policy now, gentlemen. The whole question of conduct and moderation has been a vexed one - probably the single most contentious issue that we have dealt with here.

Back before we had any policy, discussion of it draggged on and on for months, and was quite often acrimonious. Eventually, with relations on the Admin Team at an all-time low, there was a major reorganisation. As the new Chairman, and having seen for myself the impossibility of all twelve of us creating a workable policy that every one of us agreed on anytime this century, I then asked Mark Turner to take charge of the entire question of conduct and moderation, to pick as many or as few people as he saw fit (be they Admin Team members or General Members), and produce us a workable policy in the shortest practical period of time.

Mark - and after Mark had to step down to attend to family matters, Mercutio - got together with representativies of the major points of view and they hammered out the present policy within a few weeks. While I doubt that anyone was 100% satisfied with it, I think everyone was satisfied enough to feel comfortable about going along with it. We accepted their proposal right away, and the result is what you see.

I doubt that there is a single member here who agrees with the moderation policy in every detail (I certainly don't) but it is workable, it does seem to be as fair as is reasonable, it is broadly acceptable to all, and above all, it is already in place. This was a classic case of "'good enough' next week" as opposed to "'perfect' next year".

So, by all means discuss and ponder and criticise and work out ways to improve the current scheme. No-one claims it is perfect, and there are undoubtedly ways to improve upon it. But given the great difficulty we had in developing the policy in the first place, don't expect people to be too keen on changing it just yet.

Stupid cat!

 

[CougTek]

STUPID BLOODY CAT! I just lost an entire long post.

Maybe you should try to make your cat bark?

 

[Tannin]

Ha! Funny you should say that. Her name is "Woof".

 

[Prof.Wizard]

I still believe the moderator is not something needed for the time being for these forums. Or if he/she's really needed, there should be two-three max in alternating positions every 6 months, as one said above.

C'mon, it's not a big deal every six months choose 3 candidates.
HOWEVER, let me again say that because of the nature of these forums (we're almost all pals from old SR), there is no need to care too much about these issues.

The reviewing of the threads IMO should be on peer-to-peer basis. If a thread contains unlawful or disturbing post(s) we can always yell altogether, and the moderator delete/edit it.

The moderator should be only an executive figure, IMO.

 

[Prof.Wizard]

Moreover, I strongly disagree that moderators can see IPs and they can delete/edit posts without (after the editing) an indication on the thread in question that "this post has been edited by [Moderator] on [date]"...

These two are serious flaws for me.

 

[Tannin]

Prof, as I understand it, any moderator can edit or delete any post, but only under certain fairly clearly defined circumstances, and if they do, then they are also required to (a) save the original, unedited post in the Moderator's Forum (to which only the mods, the Chairman and the Webmaster have access), and (b) justify their action to the other mods.

The point of having a panel of five moderators is not to increase the power of the mods - in fact it is the exact opposite, it is to make the individual mods responsible for their actions to a committee of their peers. The moderation comittee has the power to over-ride any individual mod, and (at least in theory) the Admin Team has the power to over-ride the Mod Committee.

So, next time you insult Flagreen and he deletes your post (not that either of these things would happen, but just for the sake of example), he then has to justify his actions to the moderation committee. Eventually that will be the other four mods (when there are another four mods), but at present we have a temporary arrangement where Santilli and P5_133XL (who both helped set up the rules for this) sit in on that committee so as to make sure that no-one gets the short end of the stick. Also, the current Chairman and the current Webmaster have observer status there. All in all, I'm pretty confident that there is a good, solid set of checks and balances in place.

Now, is there any rule that says a mod has to insert a statement saying "this post edited/deleted by me for such-and-such a reason"? The mod certainly does have to declare his action in the Mod Forum, but does he have to also declare it in the public forum (the Pub and Brewary, let's say) where there moderation event took place? I'm not sure. Mercutio would know. But it seems to me that the normal practice would be for the mod to do so, and that only in exceptional circumstances (such as a Vambat666-type attack) should he not make such a statement. But I'm not sure if there is a ruling on this. As I said, I think Mercutio would know. This is his department after all.

 

[Prof.Wizard]

Prof, as I understand it, any moderator can edit or delete any post, but only under certain fairly clearly defined circumstances, and if they do, then they are also required to (a) save the original, unedited post in the Moderator's Forum (to which only the mods, the Chairman and the Webmaster have access), and (b) justify their action to the other mods.

The point of having a panel of five moderators is not to increase the power of the mods - in fact it is the exact opposite, it is to make the individual mods responsible for their actions to a committee of their peers. The moderation comittee has the power to over-ride any individual mod, and (at least in theory) the Admin Team has the power to over-ride the Mod Committee.

You miss the point Tannin. That already bestows you more power than I (personally speaking, of course) would ever want to give you.

So, next time you insult Flagreen and he deletes your post (not that either of these things would happen, but just for the sake of example), he then has to justify his actions to the moderation committee. Eventually that will be the other four mods (when there are another four mods), but at present we have a temporary arrangement where Santilli and P5_133XL (who both helped set up the rules for this) sit in on that committee so as to make sure that no-one gets the short end of the stick. Also, the current Chairman and the current Webmaster have observer status there. All in all, I'm pretty confident that there is a good, solid set of checks and balances in place.

Why should he delete a post of mine? Because I insulted him? This is exactly what I'm talking about dude. I don't know what happened exactly between JtD and flagreen, but if I ever insult him and he deletes/edits my post I'll be really pissed. :x What if he insults me? (of course he won't, but for the sake of the scenario...)

Now, is there any rule that says a mod has to insert a statement saying "this post edited/deleted by me for such-and-such a reason"? The mod certainly does have to declare his action in the Mod Forum, but does he have to also declare it in the public forum (the Pub and Brewary, let's say) where there moderation event took place? I'm not sure. Mercutio would know. But it seems to me that the normal practice would be for the mod to do so, and that only in exceptional circumstances (such as a Vambat666-type attack) should he not make such a statement. But I'm not sure if there is a ruling on this. As I said, I think Mercutio would know. This is his department after all.

The rules are made by all forum members or at least, by the boss-of-it-all... handruin. I know that handruin agrees with all (or almost all) your points, but I strongly disagree with the current practices.
No moderator should see IPs. And no moderator should delete/edit posts without the "post edited" sign.

You know, the whole thing reminds me of the UN Security Council and the permanent members which can always veto a decision... Thus, I don't see a day when the UNSC will ever be made of non-permanent members with equal rights and powers. That's why UN is a sock puppet organization...

You're a smart guy, do the analogy.

 

[Tannin]

Me? Err, where do you get that from? I am not a moderator. I can't edit or delete your post. Yes, like Webmaster Handruin, I have the technical ability to do so at present, but that is a sort of historical accident and will probably not last for too much longer anyway. But if I were to actually use that ability, I would be out on my ear faster than you could say "Jack Robinson". The same goes for Handruin. Neither of us would want to live with the disgrace that we would rightly be in were we to abuse our powers like that.

I have edited posts: obviously the FAQ thread which is the reason I happened to end up with edit powers in the first place, and twice I have made the minimum needed change in another member's post to rescue a thread from a scrolling-off-the-page URL - and in both cases, I posted a notice to that effect. By the strict letter of the law, I should not have done that either: but I made no effort to hide the fact, made it plain to all observers exactly what I had done, and stand ready to undo those very benign changes on request.

Prof: only a moderator can edit or delete your post, and the moderators are (a) carefully chosen to be the most trustworthy and honest people we can find, and (b) restricted by a fairly comprehensive set of guidelines as to what they may or may not edit/delete, and (c) required to save any and all material posted and then edited or deleted so that their action can be reversed if the moderation commitee feels that they have over-stepped the mark.

I'll deal with your other points in a moment, in a seperate post.

 

[Prof.Wizard]

Thanks. Do so.

In question:
-18-month rotations of moderators
-ability to see IPs
-ability to edit without the original poster knowing it
-what happens in case of "power abuse"

 

[Tannin]

Why should he delete a post of mine? Because I insulted him? This is exactly what I'm talking about dude.

This is why one of the primary moderation guidelines is that no moderator shall take action in any dispute in which he or she is personally involved. I'm paraphrasing here, but that is the sense of it. This is also the reason why we have so many moderators: so that in the case (say) of a dispute between you and Mercutio, some other person who has no personal axe to grind is the responsible moderator. You can pick a fight with Merc and be quite certain that he will not mod your posts, because the rules explicity forbid it. Flagreen can mod you, if he judges that you have gone beyond the bounds of reasonable discussion such that you are posing a menace to Storage Forum, and if he is prepared to justify his action before the entire Moderation Comittee (minus Mercutio, who must sit out because he is personally involved). But Mercutio can't. Or, pick a fight with Flagreen, and the reverse applies.

You can see why the policy is to have a total of five moderators. If you imagine for a moment that - sticking to my example of you and Mercutio having a big blue - Flagreen is away on a tropical holiday for three weeks, and you (or Merc) are really pushing it - posting foul personal abuse or links to warez or something of that nature - you can see that there is a real benefit in having enough mods on the panel to be sure that there is someone who is not personally involved to (a) safeguard your right to free speech, and (b) safeguard the rights of the other members to enjoy Storage Forum free of whatever anti-social filth you are spewing out.

(Not that you would do such a thing, of course. But Tea might.)

 

[Tea]

I would not!

 

[Prof.Wizard]

This is why one of the primary moderation guidelines is that no moderator shall take action in any dispute in which he or she is personally involved. I'm paraphrasing here, but that is the sense of it. This is also the reason why we have so many moderators: so that in the case (say) of a dispute between you and Mercutio, some other person who has no personal axe to grind is the responsible moderator. You can pick a fight with Merc and be quite certain that he will not mod your posts, because the rules explicity forbid it. Flagreen can mod you, if he judges that you have gone beyond the bounds of reasonable discussion such that you are posing a menace to Storage Forum, and if he is prepared to justify his action before the entire Moderation Comittee (minus Mercutio, who must sit out because he is personally involved). But Mercutio can't. Or, pick a fight with Flagreen, and the reverse applies.

Good to know. Then explain me what happened between JtD and flagreen. :-? Did flagreen edit a post?

posting foul personal abuse or links to warez or something of that nature

I would never do that, sanity permitting...

...you can see that there is a real benefit in having enough mods on the panel to be sure that there is someone who is not personally involved to (a) safeguard your right to free speech, and (b) safeguard the rights of the other members to enjoy Storage Forum free of whatever anti-social filth you are spewing out.

Fair enough. I understand. Actually, I find that moderators and the job CougTek is doing should be unified. I've noticed when I'm submitting news in the frontpage (morning in Europe) I see them online after 5-6 hours... Someone should be appointed to help on the frontpage cause it's not covered enough IMO.

(Not that you would do such a thing, of course. But Tea might.)

She would never do such a thing. Tannin, I believe you maltreat her...

 

[Tannin]

I've typed more than I care to in one night already, and Tea is jumping up and down shouting at me to give her a turn, so I'll be really brief on these things:

Prof, you asked about:

-18-month rotations of moderators
-ability to see IPs
-ability to edit without the original poster knowing it
-what happens in case of "power abuse"

The 18-month term was chosen, if I remember correctly, because it seemed to provide a balance between the conflicting goals of (a) having moderators held responsible for their actions by virtue of having a relatively short period in the job, and (b) having consistency over time, so that members can have a reasonable chance of getting to know what is considered acceptable and what is not.

The ability to see IPs is controversial. My own view is that it is pretty pointless having moderators if they can't even work out if a new member is really a new member or just It's Fubar back again to torment us under another name. And in any case, what does an IP tell anyone? Hey, I'm on 203.134.22.92. Does anybody care? But not everyone agrees with me.

I'll leave the "ability to edit without the original poster knowing it" question to someone better qualified than me. So far as I know, this is not the case, but either P5_133XL or Mercutio could give you a more authorititave answer.

What happens in case of Power abuse? So far as I know, there is no explicit mechanism in place for this, and it would be handled under the general catch-all proceedures, which (it seems to me) are perfectly capable of dealing with it.

First up, the offender would have to front the Moderation Committee, which would, I expect, take appropriate action. This might be a formal warning, a requirement to make a public apology, or a recommendation to the Chairman that the offending Mod have his powers removed. (This is not an exhaustive list, just some possible things that occurred to me. Only the third one of them is actually described in the Moderation Guidelines.)

Secondly, should there be no satisfactory resolution, the injured party should contact the Chairman (who is empowered to remove a moderator in case of special need), and failing the Chairman, the Final Arbiter (or "King"), who is empowered to remove the Chairman if he has to. (That is P5_133XL.) And, of course, you need only send a message to any member of the Admin Team, and that person will (if he is even half doing his job) will bring the matter up for discussion by, and if need be action by, the Admin Team.

Now: any more questions? Or can I let Tea have a turn at the keyboard now?

 

[Prof.Wizard]

The 18-month term was chosen, if I remember correctly, because it seemed to provide a balance between the conflicting goals of (a) having moderators held responsible for their actions by virtue of having a relatively short period in the job, and (b) having consistency over time, so that members can have a reasonable chance of getting to know what is considered acceptable and what is not.

This is definitely tooooooo looooooong. I mean, I might be doing my thesis in a year and a half. What if you ever nominated me by that time? I could never accept. Six months is enough for the above goals you named. Com'n, six month is even the EU member states presidency rotations. It's enough.

The ability to see IPs is controversial. My own view is that it is pretty pointless having moderators if they can't even work out if a new member is really a new member or just It's Fubar back again to torment us under another name. And in any case, what does an IP tell anyone? Hey, I'm on 203.134.22.92. Does anybody care? But not everyone agrees with me.

A-HA! But on the other hand I might want to create another persona to have a laugh with you (you know YOU what I mean, don't you? :wink: ) and the moderators already know it. And because the members I would love to make a laugh (The Giver, Mercutio) are in office with this power, it already spoils my joke.
Hey, even if Fubar changed a zillion personas we would still be able to intercept and counter his unique "style". I don't think that IPs are needed for this. (actually by giving me your IP now- if you run ICQ- I can always "nuke" you)
The IPs IMHO should be known only to handruin. Only he should be able to ban a member or let us know his true identity.

I'll leave the "ability to edit without the original poster knowing it" question to someone better qualified than me. So far as I know, this is not the case, but either P5_133XL or Mercutio could give you a more authorititave answer.

OK, let's see what they will say.

What happens in case of Power abuse? So far as I know, there is no explicit mechanism in place for this, and it would be handled under the general catch-all proceedures, which (it seems to me) are perfectly capable of dealing with it.

Sue him! :lol:

...the offender would have to front the Moderation Committee, which would, I expect, take appropriate action. This might be a formal warning, a requirement to make a public apology, or a recommendation to the Chairman that the offending Mod have his powers removed. (This is not an exhaustive list, just some possible things that occurred to me. Only the third one of them is actually described in the Moderation Guidelines.)

Secondly, should there be no satisfactory resolution, the injured party should contact the Chairman (who is empowered to remove a moderator in case of special need), and failing the Chairman, the Final Arbiter (or "King"), who is empowered to remove the Chairman if he has to. (That is P5_133XL.) And, of course, you need only send a message to any member of the Admin Team, and that person will (if he is even half doing his job) will bring the matter up for discussion by, and if need be action by, the Admin Team.

Do you have a degree in Jurisprudence? :lol:

 

[Tea]

You are tooooo yoooung Prof! Tannin says 18 months is hardly any time at all. Which, when you are his age, it probably isn't. But after all, Tannin is 42, which is almost as much as 100, I think. (I get confused after 20. I run out of toes.) Anyway, I shouldn't vote for you as a mod.

I'd vote for you on the Admin Team though. That is, I'd vote for you if I was real, but I'm not and I don't think I get to vote at all. Which is NOT FAIR! How come only real peope get to have any power around here?

 

[Tannin]

A degree in Jurisprudence? Err, let me check. .... Keys, wallet, bus ticket, $2.55 in small change ... Nope. Not on me. Why? Have you lost one?

ICQ is that insecure? Hmm. I rarely run it anyway, but now I feel even less inclined to do so. Tell me more about this, please Prof. (A seperate thread would be better.)

The IP address thing, as I mentioned, is controversial. My guess is that about 2/3rds of members take the same view that I do, and 1/3rd agree with you. But that's just my guess. Currently mods do have the power to see IPs. The matter came up for discussion by the Admin Team a week or two ago, but I decided to let it sit for a while - sometimes we make wiser decisions by giving ourselves time to think things over - and I expect that the incoming Chairman will make a determination sometime in July. This is what we Aussies call "the flick pass". :wink:

 

[Prof.Wizard]

I don't know where did you get that percentages (2/3 and 1/3), Tannin, but whatever...

BTW, who are the "Hidden" members I sometimes see logging on on these forums?

 

[Prof.Wizard]

Got it. It's a setting in the Profile.

 

[Mercutio]

By the moderator guidelines, no editorial action to a post can be made with out 1.) the original copy is copied to the moderators forum. 2.) A notation is made in the remnant of the original post indicating the content of the material that required editorial action.

Look at the single moderation that has been made to see this policy in action.

Finally, the job of the admins and the job of posting to the front page are different things. CougTek and Handruin are the only ones in charge of that, as a sub-section of their other responsibilties here.

 

[Prof.Wizard]

Yeah Mercutio, but I can't see the Moderators forum to know that.

 

[Mercutio]

There are formal guidelines in place. There are a number of very trustworthy individuals acting in oversight of moderation. There is a point where you're just going to have to trust that the right thing is being done.
Most of the folks in the admins group can't see us in the mods group, anyway, but still believe that the task before us is still performed per our guidelines.

So far as things go, the moderator and admin forums are both very boring places compared to the rest of the site. Believe me when I say you aren't missing much.

 

[Prof.Wizard]

What happens in case of Power abuse? So far as I know, there is no explicit mechanism in place for this, and it would be handled under the general catch-all proceedures, which (it seems to me) are perfectly capable of dealing with it.

Two examples...

the game is lost because you chose not to play fair and without respect. it's pretty lame of you to claim i was incapable of honest self-examination, lacking in personal growth and "sad" when you are the one that went back and edited your post so it said something quite less then you intended.

This is when flagreen don't know what he edited exactly, but used his mod power to change a statement. Of course you "Mod Forum" guys know of it all, but what about us? Why shouldn't we laugh with the rest of the crew?

It's flagreen. And my hand is nowhere near the "IP" button, so don't start that again.
For some reason, the Mirror's location is flagreen-esque.

Again a scenario of POSSIBLE (don't get me wrong on this Sam, please!) power abuse.
I guess Mercutio without a try can always find who's my 2nd persona in these forums. Just checks the IP and then my fun goes away...

YES, I HAVE A 2ND PERSONA! I GUESS I GOT MAD TOO WITH ALL THESE "SHIZO-POSTERS"... :drl:

 

[Prof.Wizard]

There are formal guidelines in place. There are a number of very trustworthy individuals acting in oversight of moderation. There is a point where you're just going to have to trust that the right thing is being done.
Most of the folks in the admins group can't see us in the mods group, anyway, but still believe that the task before us is still performed per our guidelines.

Hey WTF is going on here? :x
I swear I didn't have a damn clue about these things going on. "Trustworthy individuals"? Who are you people? The Illuminati? The Majestic 12?! What the...

Am I considered an untrusty member that should be kept to a need-to-know basis? By whom? By YOU?! And why you and not, let's say, Rocco?

So far as things go, the moderator and admin forums are both very boring places compared to the rest of the site. Believe me when I say you aren't missing much.

Again, let me repeat I'M NOT interested for the time being. I just wanna know I have the possibility to know what my peers know. And I consider you a peer, Mercutio, albeit all these things about trustworthy NSA stuff you've thrown to me...

 

[Mercutio]

I'll admit I didn't try to follow along with Flagreen and Jake's recent exchange. This is an argument for more mods, I suppose. I just couldn't read many of the things that were being written given other things going on.

When any post is edited, I think the BBS makes an indcation of it with the post, "[This post edited by Flagreen on ..."] . So you'll know if edits are made, at least.

 

[Mercutio]

The group is Handruin, Tannin, P5_133XL, Flagreen, Clocker, Adcadet, Groltz, Pradeep, time, James, NRG, CougTek, and myself. Anyone there you don't think trustworthy? Originally Davin was part of our group. James replaced him.
That was at a time when there were almost no formal rules here.

We don't think so, either.

 

[Mercutio]

The group is Handruin, Tannin, P5_133XL, Flagreen, Clocker, Adcadet, Groltz, Pradeep, time, James, NRG, CougTek, and myself. Anyone there you don't think trustworthy? Originally Davin was part of our group. James replaced him.
That was at a time when there were almost no formal rules here.

Anyone in that list not worthy of trust?

We didn't think so, either.

 

[Mercutio]

Note that I posted again instead of editing an existing post. Does that tell you anything?

 

[Prof.Wizard]

And why not Handruin, Buck, Koggit, iGary,... [blah blah]..., and myself?
Is it who comes first gets the place? So, should I blame Tannin for having my e-mail address wrong and didn't come a couple of weeks earlier?

Hey, I know and understand that all this sounds and is trivial... but I'm really upset so many things in these forums are beyond my control without a real reason, and without knowing it for so long...

I understand that "someone has to do the job"... CouchTest for the frontpage, Tannin-Mercutio for the moding, etc... but I wanna know the procedures of getting that persons to the jobs.

And CouchTest is dreaming when the sun is up here in Europe. We need to place another guy there ASAP. One is not enough.
(handruin has access in that page but he lives in the States too- same issue)

PS. I don't mean I don't find trustworthy the members of the oh-mighty High Priest Council, but why am I considered a "mortal" in a forum I believe I contribute so much (on and off topic)...?
PPS. What's hidden in SF?