This is actually a very good point, though for different reasons. There is no tyrant without subjects, and hosting is cheap.
Advertisement
by Czardas » Wed Dec 15, 2010 4:47 pm
by Vonners » Wed Dec 15, 2010 4:51 pm
Czardas wrote: You can go into a private channel to speak with the mods (#themodcave), or contact them individually even more privately through query, e-mail, or TG.
by Neo Art » Wed Dec 15, 2010 4:54 pm
Czardas wrote:Neo Art wrote:
Thanks for proving my point.
Okay, what do you view as the primary difference between you contacting the mods privately to explain why you are appealing a decision, and me contacting the mods privately to explain why I made a decision?
Apart from the fact that I'm a moderator and you're not, that is, since when one of my decisions is under question I cannot rule on it -- rendering the issue of authority moot in this case.
by Czardas » Wed Dec 15, 2010 4:59 pm
Vonners wrote:Czardas wrote: You can go into a private channel to speak with the mods (#themodcave), or contact them individually even more privately through query, e-mail, or TG.
I've tried to use the modcave irc twice...there were mods there but never responded to my post/chat. I waited a good ten to fifteen minutes with no answer. In other words - pointless.
e-mail ...I don't know what your (or any other mods) email address is.
TG's - I kept reading that TG's are useless due to the sheer volume of TG's you (mods) have to deal with...so use the GHR instead.
by Bluth Corporation » Wed Dec 15, 2010 5:02 pm
by Vonners » Wed Dec 15, 2010 5:05 pm
Czardas wrote:Vonners wrote:
I've tried to use the modcave irc twice...there were mods there but never responded to my post/chat. I waited a good ten to fifteen minutes with no answer. In other words - pointless.
Heh. I've tried to encourage the other mods to use it more often, but it doesn't seem to stick. <.< In theory, though, that's the best way to contact the mods for one-on-one communication. (Stalk, /msg, or /query people if no-one's around to answer.)e-mail ...I don't know what your (or any other mods) email address is.
The answer is in the OSRS.TG's - I kept reading that TG's are useless due to the sheer volume of TG's you (mods) have to deal with...so use the GHR instead.
Depends on the mod -- some answer TGs, others tend to ignore them. It's a bit hit-and-miss, actually (I know I'm pretty bad about answering for instance) which is why GHRs are recommended; I wouldn't suggest telegrams as the primary method of trying to contact a specific mod, but it's still available in most cases.
by Katganistan » Wed Dec 15, 2010 5:07 pm
Neo Art wrote:Katganistan wrote:And we don't have access to private chat channels that players have, or private forums that they create.
So, point?
Do these players moderate you on NSG?
Because if not, and I'm pretty sure they don't, I'm utterly and truly baffled as to what point you're trying to make here.
by Bluth Corporation » Wed Dec 15, 2010 5:12 pm
Katganistan wrote:Because if not, and I'm pretty sure they don't, I'm utterly and truly baffled as to what point you're trying to make here.
judges have sidebars and discussions in chambers that . . . involve the judge and the appointed legal experts.
by Neo Art » Wed Dec 15, 2010 5:13 pm
Katganistan wrote:Neo Art wrote:
Do these players moderate you on NSG?
Because if not, and I'm pretty sure they don't, I'm utterly and truly baffled as to what point you're trying to make here.
Rather, I am saying that trying to make as if there is a problem with having a private area to discuss things is odd to me. As it seems legal procedure is very popular in this thread: judges have sidebars and discussions in chambers that do not involve the jury, or the witnesses, or the people in the gallery. They involve the judge and the appointed legal experts. And after the judges have heard the objection or have ascertained the bit of information that pertained to the the discussion, they explain in varying detail what they decided. Do people insist on Court TV cameras being in chambers? Do the folks sitting in the gallery get to demand what the lawyers said in sidebar? For that matter, does anyone at all get to hear what a jury is discussing when they are trying to come up with a verdict?
by Muravyets » Wed Dec 15, 2010 5:14 pm
by Neo Art » Wed Dec 15, 2010 5:21 pm
Muravyets wrote:Katganistan wrote:And we don't have access to private chat channels that players have, or private forums that they create.
So, point?
You don't have access to my house, either. So, point? We're talking about what happens in NS and whatever private bitching about each other we may do off site either behind each other's back or to each other's faces isnsg. irrelevant.
by Muravyets » Wed Dec 15, 2010 5:22 pm
Czardas wrote:Vonners wrote:
I've tried to use the modcave irc twice...there were mods there but never responded to my post/chat. I waited a good ten to fifteen minutes with no answer. In other words - pointless.
Heh. I've tried to encourage the other mods to use it more often, but it doesn't seem to stick. <.< In theory, though, that's the best way to contact the mods for one-on-one communication. (Stalk, /msg, or /query people if no-one's around to answer.)e-mail ...I don't know what your (or any other mods) email address is.
The answer is in the OSRS.TG's - I kept reading that TG's are useless due to the sheer volume of TG's you (mods) have to deal with...so use the GHR instead.
Depends on the mod -- some answer TGs, others tend to ignore them. It's a bit hit-and-miss, actually (I know I'm pretty bad about answering for instance) which is why GHRs are recommended; I wouldn't suggest telegrams as the primary method of trying to contact a specific mod, but it's still available in most cases.
by Katganistan » Wed Dec 15, 2010 5:26 pm
Neo Art wrote:Katganistan wrote:Rather, I am saying that trying to make as if there is a problem with having a private area to discuss things is odd to me. As it seems legal procedure is very popular in this thread: judges have sidebars and discussions in chambers that do not involve the jury, or the witnesses, or the people in the gallery. They involve the judge and the appointed legal experts. And after the judges have heard the objection or have ascertained the bit of information that pertained to the the discussion, they explain in varying detail what they decided. Do people insist on Court TV cameras being in chambers? Do the folks sitting in the gallery get to demand what the lawyers said in sidebar? For that matter, does anyone at all get to hear what a jury is discussing when they are trying to come up with a verdict?
Exactly what do you think happens if a judge invites one party to private confrence without inviting the other?
Exactly what do you think happens if an appeallate authority consults with the judge who made the original ruling?
That's malpractice in a big way.
by Katganistan » Wed Dec 15, 2010 5:29 pm
Neo Art wrote:Muravyets wrote:You don't have access to my house, either. So, point? We're talking about what happens in NS and whatever private bitching about each other we may do off site either behind each other's back or to each other's faces isnsg. irrelevant.
And I am truly unsure how we are to believe that moderation is the least bit interested in hearing concerns when the response is "well you get to talk about us behind our back". Yes I suppose we do. But what theoretical comments in a hypothetical space I make about someone here in no way relates to moderation of nsg.
If you feel you are treated unfairly somewhere else take it up there. What non mods say about mods is irrelevant to the topic of moderating nsg. We aren't mods.
by Muravyets » Wed Dec 15, 2010 5:32 pm
Katganistan wrote:Neo Art wrote:
And I am truly unsure how we are to believe that moderation is the least bit interested in hearing concerns when the response is "well you get to talk about us behind our back". Yes I suppose we do. But what theoretical comments in a hypothetical space I make about someone here in no way relates to moderation of nsg.
If you feel you are treated unfairly somewhere else take it up there. What non mods say about mods is irrelevant to the topic of moderating nsg. We aren't mods.
Interesting. Where did a moderator say anything about "well you get to talk about us behind our back"?
I do believe that is Muravyets making that comment in the post you quoted.
by Czardas » Wed Dec 15, 2010 5:36 pm
Neo Art wrote:Why should you have an opportunity to justify your position twice, When I can only argue against it once?
Your decision stands or falls on the record you leave when you made it. If you failed to do that then you failed to do your job.
Let me ask you. Why should you be afforded the opportunity to explain your ruling a second time. In private?
by Bluth Corporation » Wed Dec 15, 2010 5:41 pm
Katganistan wrote:Neo Art wrote:
Exactly what do you think happens if a judge invites one party to private confrence without inviting the other?
Exactly what do you think happens if an appeallate authority consults with the judge who made the original ruling?
That's malpractice in a big way.
The judges in this case are not inviting only one party. A group of moderators, that is, the legal experts, who were not involved in the dispute are invited to the conference. They look at the evidence, they discuss it, they come up with an answer. The original moderator is barred from a vote in the discussion and answers questions if asked.
Rather like a defendant, I'd say.
And again, are cameras allowed in the jury room? Is anyone allowed to hear their discussion before the decision? Because honestly, if this is the argument that people are making, that it should be more like a legal proceeding, and that there should be unlimited transparency, if we're going to be honest, that's not what happens in a courtroom.
by Czardas » Wed Dec 15, 2010 5:41 pm
Muravyets wrote:So some mods answer TGs, some ignore them. Some mods acknowledge a player in the modcave irc, and some ignore them. I suppose some mods, like other people, will answer an email, while some will ignore it. Doesn't sound like any kind of a system. Doesn't sound like you're following any rules. Doesn't sound like a player can trust in anything mod-related, but should just keep knocking on doors in the hope they'll find the right mod on the right day who will listen to them, and then that the mods who ignored their attempts will not ignore that one mod. Yeah, I "just trust" that. You bet.
by Barringtonia » Wed Dec 15, 2010 5:42 pm
by Muravyets » Wed Dec 15, 2010 5:44 pm
by Muravyets » Wed Dec 15, 2010 5:46 pm
Czardas wrote:Muravyets wrote:So some mods answer TGs, some ignore them. Some mods acknowledge a player in the modcave irc, and some ignore them. I suppose some mods, like other people, will answer an email, while some will ignore it. Doesn't sound like any kind of a system. Doesn't sound like you're following any rules. Doesn't sound like a player can trust in anything mod-related, but should just keep knocking on doors in the hope they'll find the right mod on the right day who will listen to them, and then that the mods who ignored their attempts will not ignore that one mod. Yeah, I "just trust" that. You bet.
Well, yeah. There's never a guarantee that someone will be online precisely when you want them to. Or that your message won't be buried under other messages and not noticed unless you call our attention to it later on. I don't see why this counts as some kind of point against moderation. That kind of thing happens all the time.
by The Cat-Tribe » Wed Dec 15, 2010 5:51 pm
Katganistan wrote:Neo Art wrote:
Exactly what do you think happens if a judge invites one party to private confrence without inviting the other?
Exactly what do you think happens if an appeallate authority consults with the judge who made the original ruling?
That's malpractice in a big way.
The judges in this case are not inviting only one party. A group of moderators, that is, the legal experts, who were not involved in the dispute are invited to the conference. They look at the evidence, they discuss it, they come up with an answer. The original moderator is barred from a vote in the discussion and answers questions if asked.
Rather like a defendant, I'd say.
And again, are cameras allowed in the jury room? Is anyone allowed to hear their discussion before the decision? Because honestly, if this is the argument that people are making, that it should be more like a legal proceeding, and that there should be unlimited transparency, if we're going to be honest, that's not what happens in a courtroom.
by Barringtonia » Wed Dec 15, 2010 5:52 pm
Muravyets wrote:I feel like I'm back at square 1, only I didn't pass GO and I didn't collect $200.
by Katganistan » Wed Dec 15, 2010 5:53 pm
Muravyets wrote:Katganistan wrote:
Interesting. Where did a moderator say anything about "well you get to talk about us behind our back"?
I do believe that is Muravyets making that comment in the post you quoted.
Yes, it is me being sarcastic, but your comment was still utterly irrelevant, for the reasons I stated in my finally fully edited (added to) post.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: New Rogernomics, Quebecshire, Sylh Alanor
Advertisement