Legitimate complaints about the General forum

[NERVUN]

Question, when judges mess up, and I don't mean royally screw up, I mean make a mistake, are their censures public?

A mistake of point of law, or a violation of a canon?

If you mean "mistake of law" rather than "violation of canon" then the appellate process in which a higher authority quite clearly points out why they were wrong is very much public and utterly accessible, so yeah, that's public

And so is overturning a ruling here. I was overruled not to long ago.

As for the second, that's a nearly impossible question to ask because there's very little ground. If conduct doesn't violate a canon, then no censure is appropriate. If it violates a canon, then almost always public removal or at least public censure is appropriate.

We're not talking a major screw up, we're talking the boss pulling you aside for a small chat.

Because, honestly, excepting in major issues, repreimands are usually not public. IIRC, do not public meeting laws have excemptions about repremands unless it is something that warents full public censure/removal?

I mean, there's rarely such a thing as "minor mistake", but yeah, if you're asking if judges are just publicly censured...how many thousands of examples would you like?

See, the thing is though I am honestly confused as to why you want to see one Mod telling another that perhaps the tone is not right. Or that they got a ruling wrong and need to reverse. These are NOT major issues, they are things that, in the real world, would most likely be addressed by the boss pulling you onto the carpet to chew you out, or sticking a repreimand in your file. When there HAS been a major issue, [violet] did go out in public and made an address about it.

[Daistallia 2104]

Except the other post did which is actually another point I raised earlier on in this thread. But you can be Stevie Wonder all you want except covering your ears and not actually paying attention the the posts. So I guess you just evolved to Helen Keller.

Your argument for allowing gravdigs was that they would add to the conversation. You gave two examples. If you cannot show how they added to the conversation and instead stoop to petty insults, you are admitting concession. Thank you and good night.

[Czardas]

Honestly, at some point I am not sure why it should be my responsibility to come up with a better way for you to do your jobs. If such basic concepts like transparency and uniform enforcement are so foreign...I dont know Why to tell you.

Honestly, this is the shit I do for a living. I actually teach What are basically administrative judges how to do their jobs. These are incredibly basic concepts

Perhaps true for you, but that's not what I do for a living. I'm a 19-year-old music student. NERVUN is an English teacher. DLN works in finance. Et cetera. Mods are not judges, although I imagine if we compared their functions and limitations in detail we'd find a number of similarities.

From your statement it's implied that you have the practical knowledge necessary to suggest changes to how we moderate the website in an informed manner. Of course, if you're not interested in doing so this entire discussion has been a waste of time and effort on both of our parts.

[Neo Art]

See, the thing is though I am honestly confused as to why you want to see one Mod telling another that perhaps the tone is not right.

Couldn't give less of a fuck. I don't care if you get called to task.

I do, on the other hand, give a good amount of fuck about balance. I care about bias. I care about neutrality, and the lack thereof. And if one mod feels it appropriate to call out a player over conduct that, while perfectly legal, does violate what that mod would prefer to see, then you're damned right I expect them to not be a hypocrite and do so fairly uniformly.

I don't care if you want to be flowers and sunshine. I don't care if you want to be snide and condescending. But god damn it if you chose to take a position of authority it is not too much to expect you to comport yourself with a degree of honesty and integrity and damned right I'm going to hold your feet to the fire if you don't.

I don't care if mods don't want to call themselves out in public. I do care if they feel the need to overstep their OFFICIAL capacity and interject their PERSONAL opinions, yet simultaneously close ranks and be "a collective" when asked why what's good for the goose doesn't work for the gander.

It reeks of bias. And bias, even the HINT of bias, is an anathma to ANY system of reasoned decision making.

That's like rule fucking one dude.

Or that they got a ruling wrong and need to reverse. These are NOT major issues, they are things that, in the real world, would most likely be addressed by the boss pulling you onto the carpet to chew you out, or sticking a repreimand in your file.

Um, no. no no no. See, call me crazy, but in my own view of things, making rulings right, that's not a minor failure to do your job, that IS your job. It's not a "minor issue" to get a ruling wrong, that's a failure to do the one thing you actually are here to do. Make ruling on the rules.

Now, that's fine. Here's a hint about me. I make rulings too. 10 a day, 6 days a week. Dozens. Hundred. Couldn't count em all. And yeah, I'm wrong from time to time. And when I'm wrong, I get a very public hearings decision telling me I'm wrong. I'm not "talked to by my boss", I'm overturned. In a very tangible way.

And if you don't like being publicly overturned? Well, honestly? Suck it up. Transparency of process is a whole lot more important than your ego (your in the general sense, of course).

honestly, soooooooo much issue with moderation, SOOOOOOOOOOO many problems can be solved by just understanding three VERY SIMPLE CONCEPTS:

1) avoid the appearance of bias
2) remember that you're ALWAYS official
3) be transparent in decisions, and appeals

the rest, while it offends my general sensibilities in terms of just sloppy decision making methods, is easily fixable, and probably enough of my own issues, as I can't expect every decision making body to comport themselves to my exacting standards in that regard.

But really, those 3? Really shouldn't need ot be explained.

[Maurepas]

On a slightly different note(but slightly more On-topic, ) there is something that intrigues me about the analogy I used, and the analogy NERVUN used for Moderation.

That is, I called Moderation a "Police Force", whereas, NERVUN called it "Judges", in most countries the police are separate from the judge and jury. This is something more functional, I think, that could really go a long way towards solving the problem. That is the Mods who issue warnings and whatnot should be separate from the ones that deliberate and issue rulings, and have separate powers and roles for dealing with the forum at large. Just a thought.

I mean, hell, they're already different colours so we're half way there,

[Czardas]

honestly, soooooooo much issue with moderation, SOOOOOOOOOOO many problems can be solved by just understanding three VERY SIMPLE CONCEPTS:

1) avoid the appearance of bias
2) remember that you're ALWAYS official
3) be transparent in decisions, and appeals

the rest, while it offends my general sensibilities in terms of just sloppy decision making methods, is easily fixable, and probably enough of my own issues, as I can't expect every decision making body to comport themselves to my exacting standards in that regard.

But really, those 3? Really shouldn't need ot be explained.

I'll assume this is the main thrust of your argument.

While none of these points have been discussed yet among us, I can already say that 1) will not necessarily be simple (since bias is intensely subjective), and 2) will be a practical impossibility. The only workaround I've seen to ensure that mods are always official is the use of mod accounts not affiliated with any usernames, while the players who moderate remain anonymous, and that would seem to be counterproductive to transparency.

That said, thanks for your suggestions. If there's a practical way we can implement them we'll certainly look into it. (I'll also take a moment to echo that this issue deserves its own thread.)

[Neo Art]

I'll assume this is the main thrust of your argument.

We haven't even gotten STARTED on the laundry list of how things could be improved here.

While none of these points have been discussed yet among us, I can already say that 1) will not necessarily be simple (since bias is intensely subjective),

Not at all. Bias always exists. You can't get rid of it. What you can do is work to ensure you eliminate the appearance of bias, and set up rules with how to DEAL with bias.

and 2) will be a practical impossibility. The only workaround I've seen to ensure that mods are always official is the use of mod accounts not affiliated with any usernames, while the players who moderate remain anonymous, and that would seem to be counterproductive to transparency.

Then it's a poor workaround. Judges are judges, whether they're on the Bench or not. I am an Officer of the Court whether I am in court or not. My livelihood can be stripped from me for conduct that, were I not an attorney, would be perfectly legal. I am held to a higher standard than the general population because my role in the justice system requires that I be so. And that's a burden I willingly took on, of my own free will, when I swore the oath.

And when I talk about responsibilities that you, as adults take on, that's what I mean. Authority figures have limitations to them. They have responsibilities to them. And when you willingly become an authority, you take on those responsibilities. Does it mean you're perhaps MORE restricted than other players? yes, but again, that's what you took on.

Enough of this nonsense of "mods are players too". No, you're not, you're mods. You have authority. That comes with responsibility, enough of this bullshit trying to claim authority and shirk the responsibility of that. Enough trying to pretend mods are players with red names and extra buttons. You're authority. Authority comes with restrictions. Heavy's the head that wears the crown and all that.

Figure out where that line is and make it.

[The Norwegian Blue]

You got onto Mura for being "Off Topic", she was not, simple as that. You should've just said, "Hey, my bad, I didn't have time to read the whole post, and shouldn't have gotten onto you.", simple, done with, not a problem. You didn't do that.

Er... no, I did not. I said, "Mura, what we're discussing is the suggestions that have been put forth by the people in this thread." viewtopic.php?p=4041298#p4041298

Then after a few posts of hers where it is stated that I had blown her off and didn't bother with her comments, I finally responded with viewtopic.php?p=4046108#p4046108 to note why I didn't respond to her full points.

And then when she points that fact out, she's told she's being "rude", not told, "Yes, we're sorry, it won't happen again."

Except I'm sorry that didn't happen. I responded to a point quickly, I said nothing about being off topic. In fact she was ON topic, it was just that, at the time, I didn't have the time to go into her post in detail.

I mean, this isn't exactly the biggest and most consequential deal of the bunch, but it is just one more in a series of similar incidents, there are higher profile ones too(I'd be surprised if DI ever got an apology) , as I said I think it's a simple fix, if Moderation would just acknowledge what happened every now and again, then I think this problem is diminished greatly.

When we make mistakes, we have apologized. I know I have for when I messed up, but I honestly cannot see where I did any of what you said I did.

Speaking as someone who lists both you and Murv among the posters I respect, I don't honestly think either of you was deeply at fault here, and I think it was mostly a misunderstanding. Basically, here's the summarized version of what I read:

Murv makes an intelligent and reasonable post, beginning with an introductory paragraph about what she hopes you all WON'T do before laying out her thoughts.

You reply by snipping out everything but her intro - i.e. all the bits with her actual suggestions - and saying what I think you meant to be "don't worry, we're not doing that, and I'll look at your suggestions later" but, probably because you were hurried and left out that second bit, kinda came out as "Um, that's not what we're doing. DUH. Now offer some actual suggestions."

Murv got frustrated - who wouldn't be with that second interpretation?

You got frustrated back, since that interpretation wasn't actually what you intended, and explained that you were just in a hurry.

Murv said, in essence, "How was I supposed to know that from what you posted?" She said it in an irritated and abrasive tone, because she was irritated, but the core of her message was "you said something that sounded rude and dismissive, and I don't see 'I was busy' as a good excuse to be rude to me."

If you had, at that point, said, "Fair enough, I didn't mean it to come off as dismissive, but I could see how it did, and I'm sorry," and no one else had weighed in, I think everything would have been fine. The problem isn't really even that you didn't do that, presumably because you didn't see how it could come off as dismissive, but that her simply being irritated at a mod based on what was (I think) an inaccurate but reasonable interpretation of his posts somehow was reason enough for people to use her as some sort of example of What's Wrong With NS, and, in particular, reason for an admin to personally intervene, say nothing about any of the actual pertinent issues discussed in this thread, seemingly look at none of the context of her frustration, and simply chastise her for "being rude to a mod."

And all of this, of course, would be much less of a big deal if we had ever once seen a mod called out for "being rude to a player." I don't really believe anywhere here can honestly claim that no mod has ever been at all rude to a player, given that all of us could name a famous counterexample or two off the tops of our heads. Like I said, I am more than happy to treat the mods with all the respect I'd give anyone else - hell, most of you, I not only respect but would even say I generally like as people, so I can't imagine why I'd want to be rude to you. I'd be perfectly fine with the idea that being rude should be called out, to quote DLN, "regardless of who said it or why they felt they needed to, and to whom it was said," if that's what actually happened, but we all know it's not, and I don't think I honestly need to cite those famous counterexamples to demonstrate that. You said that "when we make mistakes, we have apologized," and that's just not true. I'm sorry, but it's not. You personally may do that, but the Mods-as-a-whole (which, as Czardas pointed out, is how you guys prefer to address issues) frequently haven't, and that's something people have brought up again and again and again and never really gotten an answer for.

[NERVUN]

See, the thing is though I am honestly confused as to why you want to see one Mod telling another that perhaps the tone is not right.

Couldn't give less of a fuck. I don't care if you get called to task.

I do, on the other hand, give a good amount of fuck about balance. I care about bias. I care about neutrality, and the lack thereof. And if one mod feels it appropriate to call out a player over conduct that, while perfectly legal, does violate what that mod would prefer to see, then you're damned right I expect them to not be a hypocrite and do so fairly uniformly.

I don't care if you want to be flowers and sunshine. I don't care if you want to be snide and condescending. But god damn it if you chose to take a position of authority it is not too much to expect you to comport yourself with a degree of honesty and integrity and damned right I'm going to hold your feet to the fire if you don't.

I don't care if mods don't want to call themselves out in public. I do care if they feel the need to overstep their OFFICIAL capacity and interject their PERSONAL opinions, yet simultaneously close ranks and be "a collective" when asked why what's good for the goose doesn't work for the gander.

It reeks of bias. And bias, even the HINT of bias, is an anathma to ANY system of reasoned decision making.

That's like rule fucking one dude.

Ok, stop right there for a second Neo. I was asking you about transparency, not bias, especially it seemed to me that you were asking for Mods to be dressed down by other Mods in public. Now I am not exactly sure just what you would like to see transparent in regards to Moderation. So instead long bits about bias, could you please tell me just what it is that you think needs to be more transparent?

Or that they got a ruling wrong and need to reverse. These are NOT major issues, they are things that, in the real world, would most likely be addressed by the boss pulling you onto the carpet to chew you out, or sticking a repreimand in your file.

Um, no. no no no. See, call me crazy, but in my own view of things, making rulings right, that's not a minor failure to do your job, that IS your job. It's not a "minor issue" to get a ruling wrong, that's a failure to do the one thing you actually are here to do. Make ruling on the rules.

Now, that's fine. Here's a hint about me. I make rulings too. 10 a day, 6 days a week. Dozens. Hundred. Couldn't count em all. And yeah, I'm wrong from time to time. And when I'm wrong, I get a very public hearings decision telling me I'm wrong. I'm not "talked to by my boss", I'm overturned. In a very tangible way.

My appologies, let me re-interate, at the drafting stage, this would happen. Once the ruling is made and it goes to appeal, any overturn is public. If you made a mistake in a draft, are you yelled at in public? I cannot imagine a buisness keeping professional employees if their boss hauled them out in front of their customers to scream about a mistake in a draft.

And yes, when on appeal the (forum) ruling is overturned, it does become public. It's posted in Moderation or the thread, or what have you. So, again, I am seriously asking just what kind of transparency you would like to see.

And if you don't like being publicly overturned? Well, honestly? Suck it up. Transparency of process is a whole lot more important than your ego (your in the general sense, of course).

A few weeks ago, TCT (and you IIRC) stated that my ruling of an incident was too lenient. The Moderators met, I gave my view, sat back, and they deliberated. Kat posted the overturn in the thread and that was that. So... it IS public.

*snip 1) because I'm currently in the middle of the bruhaha and hardly have the apperance of not being biased.*

2) remember that you're ALWAYS official

That does take away Mods as Players Too though, if we have to be official all the time I mean. I can hardly get into a good tussle in General because someone might take my views as that of an official position. So what would you suggest then?

3) be transparent in decisions, and appeals

Again, I am seriously asking you what you think is not transparent about the process.

[NERVUN]

On a slightly different note(but slightly more On-topic, ) there is something that intrigues me about the analogy I used, and the analogy NERVUN used for Moderation.

That is, I called Moderation a "Police Force", whereas, NERVUN called it "Judges", in most countries the police are separate from the judge and jury. This is something more functional, I think, that could really go a long way towards solving the problem. That is the Mods who issue warnings and whatnot should be separate from the ones that deliberate and issue rulings, and have separate powers and roles for dealing with the forum at large. Just a thought.

I mean, hell, they're already different colours so we're half way there,

It's an idea, the two issues I would see with it would be, as big as NS is, we're not exactly THAT big (Yes, I know we got mentioned in xkcd, but still ) and such a system would be akward to work with in such a small situation (Kind of how juries are usually not convined for certain kinds of courts). The second issue is one of time, just given that we go around the planet, we're already in situations where there are just one or two mods on at certain times. To be able to have quick turn arounds, we'd have to REALLY beef up the staff.

And you have no idea how hard it was not to quote Judge Dredd.

[Neo Art]

Ok, stop right there for a second Neo. I was asking you about transparency, not bias, especially it seemed to me that you were asking for Mods to be dressed down by other Mods in public.

Again, I want mods to be not hypocritical and honest. Failure to be that creates the perception of bias.

My appologies, let me re-interate, at the drafting stage, this would happen. Once the ruling is made and it goes to appeal, any overturn is public. If you made a mistake in a draft, are you yelled at in public? I cannot imagine a buisness keeping professional employees if their boss hauled them out in front of their customers to scream about a mistake in a draft.

If I made a mistake on a draft the public would have no interest in it because the public would never see it. I'm unsure what you're getting at in your analogy.

And yes, when on appeal the (forum) ruling is overturned, it does become public. It's posted in Moderation or the thread, or what have you. So, again, I am seriously asking just what kind of transparency you would like to see.
. . .
A few weeks ago, TCT (and you IIRC) stated that my ruling of an incident was too lenient. The Moderators met, I gave my view, sat back, and they deliberated. Kat posted the overturn in the thread and that was that. So... it IS public.

Exactly what you just said is the problem. The moderators met, in private. You gave your view, and had influence on that decision, in private. Not only was the appeals process kept shielded from the appellant and the appellee, the original decision maker was invited to take part in the process.

That's not transparent. That's like..the exact opposite of transparent. What I've tried to explain a dozen times, and seemingly get met with blank stares when I do, is that simply acknowledging an appeal happened, and giving the outcome of that appeal, that's not transparency. Even if the appealing party wins, the mere fact that the party wins...isn't transparency.

By your very definition, a meeting was held, privately, no parties were invited, except, inexplicably, the original fact-finder, and a decision was made, privately, and then posted. What part of that is transparent?

What moderators decided it? How many? what was the vote? was their a vote? What was discussed? What was the argument? What arguments were made? Under what error of law and/or fact was the original decision invalid?

THAT is transparency. "you occasionally win" isn't transparency. There's nothing even remotely transparent about that.

You want transparency? You want clear process. 3 mods. They do appeals. Appeals are decided by a best of 3 vote. Results are written and posted. Moderators who do appeals DO NOT DO decisions. Parties who appeal or are being part of the appeal can make their argument in public, or in private, as their sense of privacy dictates.

THAT is transparency. "well, we all got together, and I talked about the decision I made, and then they decided I was wrong, so they posted I was wrong" isn't even the remote sense transparent. It's downright fucking opaque.

But before you even get to a structured appeals process you need a set of structured rules to appeal. They're all so open, varied, utterly subjective, and loose that it's impossible to actually APPEAL anything, under any sense of any interpretation of a rule, and all you end up getting is hoping the next person just happens to think differently.

It's impossible to have a transparent process without transparent rules, and these rules are a bloody mess.

2) remember that you're ALWAYS official

That does take away Mods as Players Too though,

Yes, it does.

if we have to be official all the time I mean. I can hardly get into a good tussle in General because someone might take my views as that of an official position. So what would you suggest then?

Clearly delineated rules and clearly delineated responsibilities, such that the division between personal opinion and official position was obvious.

Duh.

Transparency, remember?

3) be transparent in decisions, and appeals

Again, I am seriously asking you what you think is not transparent about the process.

Primarily the fact that I couldn't tell you, for the life of me, what the process actually IS, or whether there is one, or whether it's anything more than "well, we talk about it...."

If I can't even DESCRIBE the process, how in the WORLD is that transparent?

[NERVUN]

Er... no, I did not. I said, "Mura, what we're discussing is the suggestions that have been put forth by the people in this thread." viewtopic.php?p=4041298#p4041298

Then after a few posts of hers where it is stated that I had blown her off and didn't bother with her comments, I finally responded with viewtopic.php?p=4046108#p4046108 to note why I didn't respond to her full points.


Except I'm sorry that didn't happen. I responded to a point quickly, I said nothing about being off topic. In fact she was ON topic, it was just that, at the time, I didn't have the time to go into her post in detail.


When we make mistakes, we have apologized. I know I have for when I messed up, but I honestly cannot see where I did any of what you said I did.

Speaking as someone who lists both you and Murv among the posters I respect, I don't honestly think either of you was deeply at fault here, and I think it was mostly a misunderstanding. Basically, here's the summarized version of what I read:

Murv makes an intelligent and reasonable post, beginning with an introductory paragraph about what she hopes you all WON'T do before laying out her thoughts.

You reply by snipping out everything but her intro - i.e. all the bits with her actual suggestions - and saying what I think you meant to be "don't worry, we're not doing that, and I'll look at your suggestions later" but, probably because you were hurried and left out that second bit, kinda came out as "Um, that's not what we're doing. DUH. Now offer some actual suggestions."

Murv got frustrated - who wouldn't be with that second interpretation?

You got frustrated back, since that interpretation wasn't actually what you intended, and explained that you were just in a hurry.

Murv said, in essence, "How was I supposed to know that from what you posted?" She said it in an irritated and abrasive tone, because she was irritated, but the core of her message was "you said something that sounded rude and dismissive, and I don't see 'I was busy' as a good excuse to be rude to me."

If you had, at that point, said, "Fair enough, I didn't mean it to come off as dismissive, but I could see how it did, and I'm sorry," and no one else had weighed in, I think everything would have been fine.

Well, the reason I didn't come back to it was that I was angry and I didn't trsut myself to type to Mura without being very much outside the line (In fact I HAD such a reply typed up, got called to go to give the test, came back for a re-read and realized this was NOT a good idea). In other words, I was taking my own advice of stepping away from the keyboard.

That said, if Mura decides to listen in again, I did not mean to blow her off at all. If anything, I was looking forward to coming back to her suggestions when I had the time and I am sorry if she feels that I did do so. My concern was that I had two posters who have been in General for a bit and know the score posting that they were afraid that we were going to decide these changes ourselves and push them from the top down without input from the community and I was hoping to reasure them that we are listening to their suggestions and not just coming up with things on our own.

However, I was quite annoyed when it was suggested that I was deliberately blowning people off and even more so when I explained (Rather tactlessly I admit, but I also admit to being about as tactful as a brick to the head when annoyed) why I was so busy to recieve her reply.

*snip a bit*

You said that "when we make mistakes, we have apologized," and that's just not true. I'm sorry, but it's not. You personally may do that, but the Mods-as-a-whole (which, as Czardas pointed out, is how you guys prefer to address issues) frequently haven't, and that's something people have brought up again and again and again and never really gotten an answer for.

Ok, how would you like us to appologize for it?

Seriously, I know I say sorry when I am wrong. I've appologized when I warned someone when I should, when I thought a picture went way past the line, when I mistook being helpful for spam, etc. Different Mods do approach things different ways of course and I'm not sure how you would want us to appologize. I mean, should it not be the individual Mod who made the mistake appologize? Getting [violet] to do so except in the most extreme situation is hard given how busy she normally is keeping the site running. I'm not making fun of you, I am seriously asking just how.

[Muravyets]

Er... no, I did not. I said, "Mura, what we're discussing is the suggestions that have been put forth by the people in this thread." viewtopic.php?p=4041298#p4041298

Then after a few posts of hers where it is stated that I had blown her off and didn't bother with her comments, I finally responded with viewtopic.php?p=4046108#p4046108 to note why I didn't respond to her full points.


Except I'm sorry that didn't happen. I responded to a point quickly, I said nothing about being off topic. In fact she was ON topic, it was just that, at the time, I didn't have the time to go into her post in detail.


When we make mistakes, we have apologized. I know I have for when I messed up, but I honestly cannot see where I did any of what you said I did.

Speaking as someone who lists both you and Murv among the posters I respect, I don't honestly think either of you was deeply at fault here, and I think it was mostly a misunderstanding. Basically, here's the summarized version of what I read:

Murv makes an intelligent and reasonable post, beginning with an introductory paragraph about what she hopes you all WON'T do before laying out her thoughts.

You reply by snipping out everything but her intro - i.e. all the bits with her actual suggestions - and saying what I think you meant to be "don't worry, we're not doing that, and I'll look at your suggestions later" but, probably because you were hurried and left out that second bit, kinda came out as "Um, that's not what we're doing. DUH. Now offer some actual suggestions."

Murv got frustrated - who wouldn't be with that second interpretation?

You got frustrated back, since that interpretation wasn't actually what you intended, and explained that you were just in a hurry.

Murv said, in essence, "How was I supposed to know that from what you posted?" She said it in an irritated and abrasive tone, because she was irritated, but the core of her message was "you said something that sounded rude and dismissive, and I don't see 'I was busy' as a good excuse to be rude to me."

If you had, at that point, said, "Fair enough, I didn't mean it to come off as dismissive, but I could see how it did, and I'm sorry," and no one else had weighed in, I think everything would have been fine. The problem isn't really even that you didn't do that, presumably because you didn't see how it could come off as dismissive, but that her simply being irritated at a mod based on what was (I think) an inaccurate but reasonable interpretation of his posts somehow was reason enough for people to use her as some sort of example of What's Wrong With NS, and, in particular, reason for an admin to personally intervene, say nothing about any of the actual pertinent issues discussed in this thread, seemingly look at none of the context of her frustration, and simply chastise her for "being rude to a mod."

And all of this, of course, would be much less of a big deal if we had ever once seen a mod called out for "being rude to a player." I don't really believe anywhere here can honestly claim that no mod has ever been at all rude to a player, given that all of us could name a famous counterexample or two off the tops of our heads. Like I said, I am more than happy to treat the mods with all the respect I'd give anyone else - hell, most of you, I not only respect but would even say I generally like as people, so I can't imagine why I'd want to be rude to you. I'd be perfectly fine with the idea that being rude should be called out, to quote DLN, "regardless of who said it or why they felt they needed to, and to whom it was said," if that's what actually happened, but we all know it's not, and I don't think I honestly need to cite those famous counterexamples to demonstrate that. You said that "when we make mistakes, we have apologized," and that's just not true. I'm sorry, but it's not. You personally may do that, but the Mods-as-a-whole (which, as Czardas pointed out, is how you guys prefer to address issues) frequently haven't, and that's something people have brought up again and again and again and never really gotten an answer for.

If anyone wants to know what reasonable, clear, and fair look like, click the spoiler. I would like to thank TNB for that entire -- and entirely correct -- post. It is sad, however, that all that chiming-in did happen and can't be un-happened. The larger issues that chiming-in brought to light can't be ignored, imo. But I hope that some people will read what TNB has said, and the specific issue she points to, and maybe think about it some.

[The Norwegian Blue]

honestly, soooooooo much issue with moderation, SOOOOOOOOOOO many problems can be solved by just understanding three VERY SIMPLE CONCEPTS:

1) avoid the appearance of bias
2) remember that you're ALWAYS official
3) be transparent in decisions, and appeals

the rest, while it offends my general sensibilities in terms of just sloppy decision making methods, is easily fixable, and probably enough of my own issues, as I can't expect every decision making body to comport themselves to my exacting standards in that regard.

But really, those 3? Really shouldn't need ot be explained.

I'll assume this is the main thrust of your argument.

While none of these points have been discussed yet among us, I can already say that 1) will not necessarily be simple (since bias is intensely subjective), and 2) will be a practical impossibility. The only workaround I've seen to ensure that mods are always official is the use of mod accounts not affiliated with any usernames, while the players who moderate remain anonymous, and that would seem to be counterproductive to transparency.

That said, thanks for your suggestions. If there's a practical way we can implement them we'll certainly look into it. (I'll also take a moment to echo that this issue deserves its own thread.)

NA already gave a bit more detail, but since I agree wholeheartedly with his three points there, I'd like to expand a little, too. (And I'm totally cool with this issue getting its own thread, but it's 1 AM and I'm way too tired to compose a coherent OP to sum the issue up, so if you make one, feel free to move this post there. )

So. Point One. As he said, the point isn't "avoid bias." You're human, so of course you can't avoid bias. It's "avoid the appearance of bias." To an extent, you guys already do this. Mods who know that an issue is a hot-button one for them should recuse themselves from decisions tied into that issue. Mods who really like or dislike a particular player shouldn't make rulings concerning that player. Mods should not be part of rulings about themselves. Mods shouldn't rule on forum violations aimed at them personally, or on arguments they are presently engaged in. Mods should very consciously rule solely on what a poster did and not who a poster is (e.g. the whole Hiddenrun "we give articulate conservatives more leeway because we don't have very many of them" thing). Maybe the ruling will still be biased, but then we at least see that you're trying. Like I said, you all do some of that already, but I do feel that it could be better.

Point Two. It's not that mods can't be players, too, or that you need two usernames, or anything like that. I don't even know that I'd phrase it as "you're always official," but I'd say that there's been a LOT of inconsistency about when mods get treated like players and when they don't. Unfortunately, it generally seems like the pattern so far has been the "have your cake and eat it too" system, in which you get treated like mods when that's nicer for you and like players when that's nicer for you. Either mods are like any other players, which means that "being rude to a mod" isn't any worse than being rude to anyone else, and that mods who do something inappropriate should be treated just like any player would in the same situation - or mods are special and warrant more respect and consideration than anyone else, which means that mods should reasonably be held to a higher standard than anyone else. It is neither fair nor reasonable to go with "you should respect us more than anyone else, but we shouldn't have to earn that respect." To paraphrase Spiderman's uncle, with minor power comes minor responsibility, and you guys are stuck with the responsibility of acting like people who particularly deserve respect if you want people to particularly respect you, or deciding that you're cool with not getting special respect or special treatment and acting however you like. One or the other.

Point Three...actually, I'll leave this to NA, since the "review the topic" page shows me that he's explaining it fine without my help, and as previously mentioned, I'm tired enough that my ability to be coherent is fading fast.

[Maurepas]

Seriously, I know I say sorry when I am wrong. I've appologized when I warned someone when I should, when I thought a picture went way past the line, when I mistook being helpful for spam, etc. Different Mods do approach things different ways of course and I'm not sure how you would want us to appologize. I mean, should it not be the individual Mod who made the mistake appologize? Getting [violet] to do so except in the most extreme situation is hard given how busy she normally is keeping the site running. I'm not making fun of you, I am seriously asking just how.

Well, that in particular does kind of get to my point. Why did [violet] get involved then? If her duties are keeping the site running, then why'd she get onto a poster? Especially when this job keeps her busy and unable to make any further statements concerning that one. Hell, threads get locked, and people get warned for doing things like that.

Whereas if only the people whose job it is to do these things, and who was able to back it up and defend their positions, etc., were involved then it wouldn't have been an issue. Hell, there was no issue, being that both sides were no longer commenting on it, until she decided to bring it up again, and promptly leave with no context, or discussion as to why she did so.

[Muravyets]

Speaking as someone who lists both you and Murv among the posters I respect, I don't honestly think either of you was deeply at fault here, and I think it was mostly a misunderstanding. Basically, here's the summarized version of what I read:

Murv makes an intelligent and reasonable post, beginning with an introductory paragraph about what she hopes you all WON'T do before laying out her thoughts.

You reply by snipping out everything but her intro - i.e. all the bits with her actual suggestions - and saying what I think you meant to be "don't worry, we're not doing that, and I'll look at your suggestions later" but, probably because you were hurried and left out that second bit, kinda came out as "Um, that's not what we're doing. DUH. Now offer some actual suggestions."

Murv got frustrated - who wouldn't be with that second interpretation?

You got frustrated back, since that interpretation wasn't actually what you intended, and explained that you were just in a hurry.

Murv said, in essence, "How was I supposed to know that from what you posted?" She said it in an irritated and abrasive tone, because she was irritated, but the core of her message was "you said something that sounded rude and dismissive, and I don't see 'I was busy' as a good excuse to be rude to me."

If you had, at that point, said, "Fair enough, I didn't mean it to come off as dismissive, but I could see how it did, and I'm sorry," and no one else had weighed in, I think everything would have been fine.

Well, the reason I didn't come back to it was that I was angry and I didn't trsut myself to type to Mura without being very much outside the line (In fact I HAD such a reply typed up, got called to go to give the test, came back for a re-read and realized this was NOT a good idea). In other words, I was taking my own advice of stepping away from the keyboard.

Was that before or after the post where you told me how way too mad you were to talk and then yelled at me for a while longer (the Busy Day post)?

That said, if Mura decides to listen in again, I did not mean to blow her off at all. If anything, I was looking forward to coming back to her suggestions when I had the time and I am sorry if she feels that I did do so.

I'm perfectly willing to listen, to understand, to accept your apology and to offer my own for having gotten mad at you.

Sadly, the exchange between you and me stopped being the point, really, once the party got rolling with Muravyets cast as The Bad Seed of moderation. Alas. But I'm going to bed now, so that should make everything better for some people, yes?

My concern was that I had two posters who have been in General for a bit and know the score posting that they were afraid that we were going to decide these changes ourselves and push them from the top down without input from the community and I was hoping to reasure them that we are listening to their suggestions and not just coming up with things on our own.

However, I was quite annoyed when it was suggested that I was deliberately blowning people off and even more so when I explained (Rather tactlessly I admit, but I also admit to being about as tactful as a brick to the head when annoyed) why I was so busy to recieve her reply.

*snip a bit*

You said that "when we make mistakes, we have apologized," and that's just not true. I'm sorry, but it's not. You personally may do that, but the Mods-as-a-whole (which, as Czardas pointed out, is how you guys prefer to address issues) frequently haven't, and that's something people have brought up again and again and again and never really gotten an answer for.

Ok, how would you like us to appologize for it?

Seriously, I know I say sorry when I am wrong. I've appologized when I warned someone when I should, when I thought a picture went way past the line, when I mistook being helpful for spam, etc. Different Mods do approach things different ways of course and I'm not sure how you would want us to appologize. I mean, should it not be the individual Mod who made the mistake appologize? Getting [violet] to do so except in the most extreme situation is hard given how busy she normally is keeping the site running. I'm not making fun of you, I am seriously asking just how.

[NERVUN]

Ok, stop right there for a second Neo. I was asking you about transparency, not bias, especially it seemed to me that you were asking for Mods to be dressed down by other Mods in public.

Again, I want mods to be not hypocritical and honest. Failure to be that creates the perception of bias.

All I can tell you is we're doing the best we can, and moreso than I normally see online.

My appologies, let me re-interate, at the drafting stage, this would happen. Once the ruling is made and it goes to appeal, any overturn is public. If you made a mistake in a draft, are you yelled at in public? I cannot imagine a buisness keeping professional employees if their boss hauled them out in front of their customers to scream about a mistake in a draft.

If I made a mistake on a draft the public would have no interest in it because the public would never see it. I'm unsure what you're getting at in your analogy.

When I was saying another Mod might tell me, "You're wrong in your ruling, you better reverse that" is something that happens at the drafting stage of a ruling for us. For example, last night I saw something I thought might be off, I asked another Mod and was given the opinion that it wasn't. In thinking some more, I agreed, no action was taken.

That what I was getting at. When an appeal is overturned, it is public. What I am confused at is your notion of transparency because it does seem like, to me, that you're asking to see things that are not of public interest.

And yes, when on appeal the (forum) ruling is overturned, it does become public. It's posted in Moderation or the thread, or what have you. So, again, I am seriously asking just what kind of transparency you would like to see.
. . .
A few weeks ago, TCT (and you IIRC) stated that my ruling of an incident was too lenient. The Moderators met, I gave my view, sat back, and they deliberated. Kat posted the overturn in the thread and that was that. So... it IS public.

Exactly what you just said is the problem. The moderators met, in private. You gave your view, and had influence on that decision, in private. Not only was the appeals process kept shielded from the appellant and the appellee, the original decision maker was invited to take part in the process.

That's not transparent. That's like..the exact opposite of transparent. What I've tried to explain a dozen times, and seemingly get met with blank stares when I do, is that simply acknowledging an appeal happened, and giving the outcome of that appeal, that's not transparency. Even if the appealing party wins, the mere fact that the party wins...isn't transparency.

By your very definition, a meeting was held, privately, no parties were invited, except, inexplicably, the original fact-finder, and a decision was made, privately, and then posted. What part of that is transparent?

What moderators decided it? How many? what was the vote? was their a vote? What was discussed? What was the argument? What arguments were made? Under what error of law and/or fact was the original decision invalid?

I was asked to explain my ruling. And, as I recall, both you and TCT made rather long posts about what you thought was wrong. Does SCOTUS post what was talked about in chambers when deciding the case? Again, do not public meeting laws shield those being pulled up for disaplin, excepting to post the result?

There's a lot of real world situations that do things this way.

You want transparency? You want clear process. 3 mods. They do appeals. Appeals are decided by a best of 3 vote. Results are written and posted. Moderators who do appeals DO NOT DO decisions. Parties who appeal or are being part of the appeal can make their argument in public, or in private, as their sense of privacy dictates.

So in other words you want the current system, just changing the who from any avalable, non-involved, mods to 3 appeal deciders.

Hmm... I think that would slow it down more than it already is, but it might be do-able.

But before you even get to a structured appeals process you need a set of structured rules to appeal. They're all so open, varied, utterly subjective, and loose that it's impossible to actually APPEAL anything, under any sense of any interpretation of a rule, and all you end up getting is hoping the next person just happens to think differently.

I'm not sure it is possible to structure rules for an internet forum to be that strict without losing it. I would be interested in seeing some examples though.

That does take away Mods as Players Too though,

Yes, it does.

Then what's in it for us? Your responce to Czar notes you're an officer of the court and your responciblites. I understand because as a teacher I too have limits on what I am socially allowed to do. But the thing is, we both get paid (You far more than me, I'm sure. ) as compensation. We mod because we love the game, if you take away the game, then what?

if we have to be official all the time I mean. I can hardly get into a good tussle in General because someone might take my views as that of an official position. So what would you suggest then?

Clearly delineated rules and clearly delineated responsibilities, such that the division between personal opinion and official position was obvious.

One would think that using the warning code would be a very good indication of that.

Again, I am seriously asking you what you think is not transparent about the process.

Primarily the fact that I couldn't tell you, for the life of me, what the process actually IS, or whether there is one, or whether it's anything more than "well, we talk about it...."

If I can't even DESCRIBE the process, how in the WORLD is that transparent?

It's still up in the One-Stop Rules Shop and is followed every time...

[NERVUN]

Last series of posts before I head out for the night. Since I've got a sick kid at home, it might be tomorrow when I return.

I'll assume this is the main thrust of your argument.

While none of these points have been discussed yet among us, I can already say that 1) will not necessarily be simple (since bias is intensely subjective), and 2) will be a practical impossibility. The only workaround I've seen to ensure that mods are always official is the use of mod accounts not affiliated with any usernames, while the players who moderate remain anonymous, and that would seem to be counterproductive to transparency.

That said, thanks for your suggestions. If there's a practical way we can implement them we'll certainly look into it. (I'll also take a moment to echo that this issue deserves its own thread.)

NA already gave a bit more detail, but since I agree wholeheartedly with his three points there, I'd like to expand a little, too. (And I'm totally cool with this issue getting its own thread, but it's 1 AM and I'm way too tired to compose a coherent OP to sum the issue up, so if you make one, feel free to move this post there. )

So. Point One. As he said, the point isn't "avoid bias." You're human, so of course you can't avoid bias. It's "avoid the appearance of bias." To an extent, you guys already do this. Mods who know that an issue is a hot-button one for them should recuse themselves from decisions tied into that issue. Mods who really like or dislike a particular player shouldn't make rulings concerning that player. Mods should not be part of rulings about themselves. Mods shouldn't rule on forum violations aimed at them personally, or on arguments they are presently engaged in. Mods should very consciously rule solely on what a poster did and not who a poster is (e.g. the whole Hiddenrun "we give articulate conservatives more leeway because we don't have very many of them" thing). Maybe the ruling will still be biased, but then we at least see that you're trying. Like I said, you all do some of that already, but I do feel that it could be better.

Ok, how? Seriously here. How can we do this better?

Point Two. It's not that mods can't be players, too, or that you need two usernames, or anything like that. I don't even know that I'd phrase it as "you're always official," but I'd say that there's been a LOT of inconsistency about when mods get treated like players and when they don't. Unfortunately, it generally seems like the pattern so far has been the "have your cake and eat it too" system, in which you get treated like mods when that's nicer for you and like players when that's nicer for you. Either mods are like any other players, which means that "being rude to a mod" isn't any worse than being rude to anyone else, and that mods who do something inappropriate should be treated just like any player would in the same situation - or mods are special and warrant more respect and consideration than anyone else, which means that mods should reasonably be held to a higher standard than anyone else. It is neither fair nor reasonable to go with "you should respect us more than anyone else, but we shouldn't have to earn that respect." To paraphrase Spiderman's uncle, with minor power comes minor responsibility, and you guys are stuck with the responsibility of acting like people who particularly deserve respect if you want people to particularly respect you, or deciding that you're cool with not getting special respect or special treatment and acting however you like. One or the other.

And how can we improve this then?

Point Three...actually, I'll leave this to NA, since the "review the topic" page shows me that he's explaining it fine without my help, and as previously mentioned, I'm tired enough that my ability to be coherent is fading fast.

Not MY fault you guys are all on the other side of the planet where it's way past midnight.

[NERVUN]

Seriously, I know I say sorry when I am wrong. I've appologized when I warned someone when I should, when I thought a picture went way past the line, when I mistook being helpful for spam, etc. Different Mods do approach things different ways of course and I'm not sure how you would want us to appologize. I mean, should it not be the individual Mod who made the mistake appologize? Getting [violet] to do so except in the most extreme situation is hard given how busy she normally is keeping the site running. I'm not making fun of you, I am seriously asking just how.

Well, that in particular does kind of get to my point. Why did [violet] get involved then? If her duties are keeping the site running, then why'd she get onto a poster? Especially when this job keeps her busy and unable to make any further statements concerning that one. Hell, threads get locked, and people get warned for doing things like that.

[violet] does check up from time to time, but it's not exactly a set schedual. I would assume she noticed this being busy in technical with the new theme. She's the site admin after all.

Whereas if only the people whose job it is to do these things, and who was able to back it up and defend their positions, etc., were involved then it wouldn't have been an issue. Hell, there was no issue, being that both sides were no longer commenting on it, until she decided to bring it up again, and promptly leave with no context, or discussion as to why she did so.

Well, the when was kinda my fault as I had bumped the thread with the proposals, so that made it 'live' again.

[The Norwegian Blue]

Speaking as someone who lists both you and Murv among the posters I respect, I don't honestly think either of you was deeply at fault here, and I think it was mostly a misunderstanding. Basically, here's the summarized version of what I read:

Murv makes an intelligent and reasonable post, beginning with an introductory paragraph about what she hopes you all WON'T do before laying out her thoughts.

You reply by snipping out everything but her intro - i.e. all the bits with her actual suggestions - and saying what I think you meant to be "don't worry, we're not doing that, and I'll look at your suggestions later" but, probably because you were hurried and left out that second bit, kinda came out as "Um, that's not what we're doing. DUH. Now offer some actual suggestions."

Murv got frustrated - who wouldn't be with that second interpretation?

You got frustrated back, since that interpretation wasn't actually what you intended, and explained that you were just in a hurry.

Murv said, in essence, "How was I supposed to know that from what you posted?" She said it in an irritated and abrasive tone, because she was irritated, but the core of her message was "you said something that sounded rude and dismissive, and I don't see 'I was busy' as a good excuse to be rude to me."

If you had, at that point, said, "Fair enough, I didn't mean it to come off as dismissive, but I could see how it did, and I'm sorry," and no one else had weighed in, I think everything would have been fine.

Well, the reason I didn't come back to it was that I was angry and I didn't trsut myself to type to Mura without being very much outside the line (In fact I HAD such a reply typed up, got called to go to give the test, came back for a re-read and realized this was NOT a good idea). In other words, I was taking my own advice of stepping away from the keyboard.

That said, if Mura decides to listen in again, I did not mean to blow her off at all. If anything, I was looking forward to coming back to her suggestions when I had the time and I am sorry if she feels that I did do so. My concern was that I had two posters who have been in General for a bit and know the score posting that they were afraid that we were going to decide these changes ourselves and push them from the top down without input from the community and I was hoping to reasure them that we are listening to their suggestions and not just coming up with things on our own.

However, I was quite annoyed when it was suggested that I was deliberately blowning people off and even more so when I explained (Rather tactlessly I admit, but I also admit to being about as tactful as a brick to the head when annoyed) why I was so busy to recieve her reply.

*snip a bit*

You said that "when we make mistakes, we have apologized," and that's just not true. I'm sorry, but it's not. You personally may do that, but the Mods-as-a-whole (which, as Czardas pointed out, is how you guys prefer to address issues) frequently haven't, and that's something people have brought up again and again and again and never really gotten an answer for.

Ok, how would you like us to appologize for it?

Seriously, I know I say sorry when I am wrong. I've appologized when I warned someone when I should, when I thought a picture went way past the line, when I mistook being helpful for spam, etc. Different Mods do approach things different ways of course and I'm not sure how you would want us to appologize. I mean, should it not be the individual Mod who made the mistake appologize? Getting [violet] to do so except in the most extreme situation is hard given how busy she normally is keeping the site running. I'm not making fun of you, I am seriously asking just how.

I tried for a few minutes to write a coherent response, but I'm at the stage of sleepiness where my attempts at coherence turn into, "hehehehe...butts." Since I'm not sure butts would solve this particular problem, I'm going to go to bed instead, but I figured I should say something since I'm likely to be too busy to have more than a couple of minutes on NSG until at least tomorrow night. I will try to answer this question then, though, unless someone else beats me to it and does better than I would have or something. For what it's worth, though, I do want to note that even though I wasn't the one who needed an apology, I appreciate and respect that you put your money where your mouth was and apologized to Murv.

Speaking as someone who lists both you and Murv among the posters I respect, I don't honestly think either of you was deeply at fault here, and I think it was mostly a misunderstanding. Basically, here's the summarized version of what I read:

Murv makes an intelligent and reasonable post, beginning with an introductory paragraph about what she hopes you all WON'T do before laying out her thoughts.

You reply by snipping out everything but her intro - i.e. all the bits with her actual suggestions - and saying what I think you meant to be "don't worry, we're not doing that, and I'll look at your suggestions later" but, probably because you were hurried and left out that second bit, kinda came out as "Um, that's not what we're doing. DUH. Now offer some actual suggestions."

Murv got frustrated - who wouldn't be with that second interpretation?

You got frustrated back, since that interpretation wasn't actually what you intended, and explained that you were just in a hurry.

Murv said, in essence, "How was I supposed to know that from what you posted?" She said it in an irritated and abrasive tone, because she was irritated, but the core of her message was "you said something that sounded rude and dismissive, and I don't see 'I was busy' as a good excuse to be rude to me."

If you had, at that point, said, "Fair enough, I didn't mean it to come off as dismissive, but I could see how it did, and I'm sorry," and no one else had weighed in, I think everything would have been fine. The problem isn't really even that you didn't do that, presumably because you didn't see how it could come off as dismissive, but that her simply being irritated at a mod based on what was (I think) an inaccurate but reasonable interpretation of his posts somehow was reason enough for people to use her as some sort of example of What's Wrong With NS, and, in particular, reason for an admin to personally intervene, say nothing about any of the actual pertinent issues discussed in this thread, seemingly look at none of the context of her frustration, and simply chastise her for "being rude to a mod."

And all of this, of course, would be much less of a big deal if we had ever once seen a mod called out for "being rude to a player." I don't really believe anywhere here can honestly claim that no mod has ever been at all rude to a player, given that all of us could name a famous counterexample or two off the tops of our heads. Like I said, I am more than happy to treat the mods with all the respect I'd give anyone else - hell, most of you, I not only respect but would even say I generally like as people, so I can't imagine why I'd want to be rude to you. I'd be perfectly fine with the idea that being rude should be called out, to quote DLN, "regardless of who said it or why they felt they needed to, and to whom it was said," if that's what actually happened, but we all know it's not, and I don't think I honestly need to cite those famous counterexamples to demonstrate that. You said that "when we make mistakes, we have apologized," and that's just not true. I'm sorry, but it's not. You personally may do that, but the Mods-as-a-whole (which, as Czardas pointed out, is how you guys prefer to address issues) frequently haven't, and that's something people have brought up again and again and again and never really gotten an answer for.

If anyone wants to know what reasonable, clear, and fair look like, click the spoiler.

I try.

[NERVUN]

Well, the reason I didn't come back to it was that I was angry and I didn't trsut myself to type to Mura without being very much outside the line (In fact I HAD such a reply typed up, got called to go to give the test, came back for a re-read and realized this was NOT a good idea). In other words, I was taking my own advice of stepping away from the keyboard.

Was that before or after the post where you told me how way too mad you were to talk and then yelled at me for a while longer (the Busy Day post)?

A bit of both. I had one REALLY bad one written after I had read your first reply. When I came back and re-read it, I figured it was... a wee bit strong.

*Snip of the rest for brevity's sake and a need to go home to a toddler with a cold*

[The Bleeding Roses]

How bout those damn stickies? Anyone else hate those too?













Changing subject in 3...2...1...

[Barringtonia]

How bout those damn stickies? Anyone else hate those too?

I've never seen the need for more than one, if it was titled 'READ: All you need to know about posting and posters' then that would work for me, other than the occasional sticky for a particular subject where warranted, such as the Wikileaks.

They're constantly pruned then grow back like weeds before they reach down to a point where they clearly require pruning again.

[The Archregimancy]

I would like to take a moment to thank everyone for their contributions to this thread.

It has been a useful exercise to have some differences of opinion robustly highlighted, and no doubt this will continue to stimulate some vibrant discussions among the mods and admins behind the scenes. While this may not always be readily apparent, I assure everyone that all issues highlighted have been given due consideration.

I would nonetheless gently recommend that if there are further concerns that anyone wishes to raise about the manner in which moderators carry out their tasks, rather than recommendations on structural reforms to the General forum, that these be taken to a new thread so as to facilitate our ability to implement the latter. This is not an attempt to close off debate on the former point, merely a request to help us with the purpose for which this thread was originally intended.

[Belschaft]

Any chance of a recap of current proposals on the floor and mod positions on them?