Q: Putting moderators on ignore

[United Muscovite Nations]

Katganistan repeatedly engages in toxic personal attacks in the Abortion thread in the hopes of driving any pro-life presence from the thread, as well as spamming the thread with sometimes 7 or 8 posts in one batch. Other users who engage in this behavior, we are told to put on ignore, but this is not possible with her. Is there anything I can do with that or do I just have to deal with it?

[The Black Forrest]

Katganistan repeatedly engages in toxic personal attacks in the Abortion thread in the hopes of driving any pro-life presence from the thread, as well as spamming the thread with sometimes 7 or 8 posts in one batch. Other users who engage in this behavior, we are told to put on ignore, but this is not possible with her. Is there anything I can do with that or do I just have to deal with it?

Toxic personal attacks are against the rules. Link the examples.

As to ignoring a mod? Kind of hard to implement especially if the mod has to do a mod action against you.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Katganistan repeatedly engages in toxic personal attacks in the Abortion thread in the hopes of driving any pro-life presence from the thread, as well as spamming the thread with sometimes 7 or 8 posts in one batch. Other users who engage in this behavior, we are told to put on ignore, but this is not possible with her. Is there anything I can do with that or do I just have to deal with it?

Toxic personal attacks are against the rules. Link the examples.

As to ignoring a mod? Kind of hard to implement especially if the mod has to do a mod action against you.

I don't think they rise to the level of being against the rules, but the posts are annoying and take up a huge amount of space.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

Sometimes, I wish mods wouldn't debate in General with their mod accounts for that reason. While most mods are pleasant to debate with, even if we strongly disagree on something, some are not.

Note: I'm not talking about Katganistan, nor naming names.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Sometimes, I wish mods wouldn't debate in General with their mod accounts for that reason. While most mods are pleasant to debate with, some are not.

Yeah, that's exactly what I mean. With other regular posters, there's an equality because you can put them on ignore if they're making you angry, but if they're a mod you have to see everything they post, and additionally you have to watch yourself a lot more because even the most minor infraction could be warnable.

[Window Land]

Sometimes, I wish mods wouldn't debate in General with their mod accounts for that reason. While most mods are pleasant to debate with, some are not.

Yeah, that's exactly what I mean. With other regular posters, there's an equality because you can put them on ignore if they're making you angry, but if they're a mod you have to see everything they post, and additionally you have to watch yourself a lot more because even the most minor infraction could be warnable.

Mods aren't allowed warn on threads they participate in. They are supposed to report the person in moderation like anybody else.

[USS Monitor]

Sometimes, I wish mods wouldn't debate in General with their mod accounts for that reason. While most mods are pleasant to debate with, even if we strongly disagree on something, some are not.

Note: I'm not talking about Katganistan, nor naming names.

The problem is, if a mod uses an unknown puppet, then nobody knows who it is, and if they use a known puppet, you'll have a lot of the same baggage as using your mod account. People can put a puppet on ignore, but I imagine it still won't sit well for a lot of players if they have to do that for a known mod puppet.

It can be a difficult balancing act for a mod to express themselves fully while still living up to players' expectations of civility, but I still think asking mods to practice good etiquette is a better solution than looking for better tools for players to block them out.

[The Black Forrest]

Sometimes, I wish mods wouldn't debate in General with their mod accounts for that reason. While most mods are pleasant to debate with, even if we strongly disagree on something, some are not.

Note: I'm not talking about Katganistan, nor naming names.

The problem is, if a mod uses an unknown puppet, then nobody knows who it is, and if they use a known puppet, you'll have a lot of the same baggage as using your mod account. People can put a puppet on ignore, but I imagine it still won't sit well for a lot of players if they have to do that for a known mod puppet.

It can be a difficult balancing act for a mod to express themselves fully while still living up to players' expectations of civility, but I still think asking mods to practice good etiquette is a better solution than looking for better tools for players to block them out.

When I was a mod at 3do; you had to create a new account to be the moderator account. Your other account was known to the other moderators and the web master. You could argue and debate with your personal account. When it came time to be a moderator; you switched to it.

The moderators and the webmaster policed the personal accounts to make sure there wasn't mod abuse (example: get in a fight with another user and drop the ban hammer). For them it worked. If I remember right there was only one incident of a mod getting tossed. There was the occasional "Who do you think is *moderator account*?

[The New California Republic]

Katganistan repeatedly engages in toxic personal attacks in the Abortion thread [...] do I just have to deal with it?

I mean, now bear with me here while I make this totally outrageous suggestion, you could just ignore the thread like you have said that you will on previous occasions? No?

[Juristonia]

Mods aren't allowed warn on threads they participate in. They are supposed to report the person in moderation like anybody else.

Yes, they are. There's no rule barring mods from warning in threads they're active on. They just usually don't.

[USS Monitor]

Mods aren't allowed warn on threads they participate in. They are supposed to report the person in moderation like anybody else.

Yes, they are. There's no rule barring mods from warning in threads they're active on. They just usually don't.

It is frowned on within the mod team, except for urgent issues like content that needs to be removed from public view. If a mod does use their powers in a thread where they're a participant, they'll generally draw other mods' attention to it so others can review the ruling.

[Juristonia]

Ay, but it's more common practice/courtesy/sense than an actual rule, right?

[USS Monitor]

Ay, but it's more common practice/courtesy/sense than an actual rule, right?

It was a pretty strong expectation while I was on the team.

But I think UMN is not so concerned about Kat warning him herself, so much as reporting things to other mods.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Katganistan repeatedly engages in toxic personal attacks in the Abortion thread [...] do I just have to deal with it?

I mean, now bear with me here while I make this totally outrageous suggestion, you could just ignore the thread like you have said that you will on previous occasions? No?

The ignore feature for threads is buggy and doesn't work.

[The New California Republic]

I mean, now bear with me here while I make this totally outrageous suggestion, you could just ignore the thread like you have said that you will on previous occasions? No?

The ignore feature for threads is buggy and doesn't work.

You misunderstand. Just use some modicum of self control and don't go on the thread.

[The Chuck]

Katganistan repeatedly engages in toxic personal attacks in the Abortion thread in the hopes of driving any pro-life presence from the thread, as well as spamming the thread with sometimes 7 or 8 posts in one batch. Other users who engage in this behavior, we are told to put on ignore, but this is not possible with her. Is there anything I can do with that or do I just have to deal with it?

TNCR. I think part of it is that if UMN leaves, Katganistan wins.

[Frisbeeteria]

Ay, but it's more common practice/courtesy/sense than an actual rule, right?

No, it's a mod ethics rule. Mods can do simple tasks like removing spam, but they can't warn players they're actively arguing with. It's not in the OSRS, but it's in a backstage thread describing our roles. We can't put most of those rules into the OSRS due to operational security reasons.

[Ethel mermania]

UMN has a point though. You cant put a mod on ignore. If Kat were post, or any mod for that matter, with a "mod's name here puppet", UMN would have the ability to put "kat's puppet" on ignore and not see the posts that bother him so much. As kat as a moderator may very well need the ability to talk to UMN, it is reasonable that he should not be able to foe Kat in her capacity as a moderator.

While I hate to put more blocks in what is a voluntary position, may it would be reasonable for a moderator to use a "mods puppet" account for posting in the more contentious debate threads in general.

OF course, there would be nothing wrong with them iding themselves as who they are in the puppet, but that puppet would be a foeable poster. So whatever hearsy they are preaching can be safely foed by the so bothered individual

[Thermodolia]

Katganistan repeatedly engages in toxic personal attacks in the Abortion thread [...] do I just have to deal with it?

I mean, now bear with me here while I make this totally outrageous suggestion, you could just ignore the thread like you have said that you will on previous occasions? No?

Or just ignore certain posters?

[The New California Republic]

Katganistan repeatedly engages in toxic personal attacks in the Abortion thread in the hopes of driving any pro-life presence from the thread, as well as spamming the thread with sometimes 7 or 8 posts in one batch. Other users who engage in this behavior, we are told to put on ignore, but this is not possible with her. Is there anything I can do with that or do I just have to deal with it?

TNCR. I think part of it is that if UMN leaves, Katganistan wins.

Not really. This whole debacle started months ago, and UMN themselves even said that the best thing to do would be to leave the thread.

[Juristonia]

No, it's a mod ethics rule. Mods can do simple tasks like removing spam, but they can't warn players they're actively arguing with. It's not in the OSRS, but it's in a backstage thread describing our roles. We can't put most of those rules into the OSRS due to operational security reasons.

I b standing corrected!

[LiberNovusAmericae]

The problem is, if a mod uses an unknown puppet, then nobody knows who it is, and if they use a known puppet, you'll have a lot of the same baggage as using your mod account. People can put a puppet on ignore, but I imagine it still won't sit well for a lot of players if they have to do that for a known mod puppet.

It can be a difficult balancing act for a mod to express themselves fully while still living up to players' expectations of civility, but I still think asking mods to practice good etiquette is a better solution than looking for better tools for players to block them out.

When I was a mod at 3do; you had to create a new account to be the moderator account. Your other account was known to the other moderators and the web master. You could argue and debate with your personal account. When it came time to be a moderator; you switched to it.

The moderators and the webmaster policed the personal accounts to make sure there wasn't mod abuse (example: get in a fight with another user and drop the ban hammer). For them it worked. If I remember right there was only one incident of a mod getting tossed. There was the occasional "Who do you think is *moderator account*?

I think NS should adopt a similar system. I mean, mods shouldn't be forced to be anonymous, but it might be a good idea for them to have seperate accounts for the sole purpose of moderating.

[NERVUN]

When I was a mod at 3do; you had to create a new account to be the moderator account. Your other account was known to the other moderators and the web master. You could argue and debate with your personal account. When it came time to be a moderator; you switched to it.

The moderators and the webmaster policed the personal accounts to make sure there wasn't mod abuse (example: get in a fight with another user and drop the ban hammer). For them it worked. If I remember right there was only one incident of a mod getting tossed. There was the occasional "Who do you think is *moderator account*?

I think NS should adopt a similar system. I mean, mods shouldn't be forced to be anonymous, but it might be a good idea for them to have seperate accounts for the sole purpose of moderating.

The issue comes from what happens when we forget to switch out?

Or while posting we see something that needs immediate action, but have to wait for the PC to cycle a switch?

[Ethel mermania]

I think NS should adopt a similar system. I mean, mods shouldn't be forced to be anonymous, but it might be a good idea for them to have seperate accounts for the sole purpose of moderating.

The issue comes from what happens when we forget to switch out?

Or while posting we see something that needs immediate action, but have to wait for the PC to cycle a switch?

You say oops my bad, you take a small paycut, and we move on.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

I think NS should adopt a similar system. I mean, mods shouldn't be forced to be anonymous, but it might be a good idea for them to have seperate accounts for the sole purpose of moderating.

The issue comes from what happens when we forget to switch out?

Or while posting we see something that needs immediate action, but have to wait for the PC to cycle a switch?

For the first question, a minor embarrasment I'm sure. I doubt a mod puppet would be DEAT for impersonation or anything like that.

For the second question, I don't know if mod accounts take longer to load, so I cannot answer. I can switch between accounts quickly, but I don't know about you guys.