@wolfs said in Regarding administration on MSB:
@tempest I'm not surprised you'd think that, but you're probably still annoyed that I dared to call you out on your victim-blaming bullshit and general attempts to draw attention to yourself.
Dang! You caught me!
Like I said, yes it was rather silly. But you know, I have done silly and relatively harmless things in the name of Jesus CHRIST fine WILL you shut UP, myself...on game and off.
@bored said in Regarding administration on MSB:
@thenomain Yes, that post. I don't know what to tell you. 'Hey I am making a big show of us not supporting this thing.'
Ohhhhhhh, then yes, I understand. Mind you, I already said that I thought it's cart before the horse, so I'm not sure what you're arguing about. I think calling it "damaging" without seeing any results to your fears is also cart before the horse.
I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to my banning your right to say it.
@bored but any moderator clearly has the authority to speak as a mod. I mean that is absolutely crystal clear, even when there is not consensus.
There was not a “AND ANY WHO DO SO SHALL BE SITEBANNED AND PUNISHED ON THE WORD OF THESE GOOD MUSHSTAFF!!!!” added to it. That would be overstepping authority so far as I know. Nothing has been mentioned about anyone but ark being able to unilaterally ban/silence anyone in their own individual judgement.
But make comments? That’s already clearly part of the perks, no overstepping authority.
Jesus, I go to work for ONE DAY...
@thenomain You aren't the only one that sees the not-so-subtle correlations between staffers who are acting in ways that they would ban people for on their own games. Its being noted with high amusement.
@Auspice I will agree and say that maybe the post was a bit premature.. but I don't see anything inherently wrong with it. There are games too numerous to count where staff have pre-emptively posted to stop certain undesirable behaviors before they start. I don't see the difference here.
NOW, I haven't seen this 'Not Mod Voice' post being talked about (sue me, there's still 20 updates on MSB for me to catch up on!)... but if its meant to be an informal forum in the first place, which I believe is the intention but I will stand down to someone with more behind-the-curtain knowledge than me (mods, looking at you!).. then why all the burnt asses about a moderator trying to be informal?
I still don't this this as a big deal. I am likely the first to rant about unnecessary moderation.
I don't see this as being a case of it.
Would I have made the post as a mod? Not without someone posting something to the effect of lets do X but given that WORA the board quite a few of us long timers migrated from did have these things planed there and then executed, and such things have been mentioned hopefully jokingly in other threads, I also don't see it as a grand controversy that it was addressed as a Don't Do This post either.
@thenomain I mean, damaging only on the scale of any of this shit being anything which anyone takes remotely seriously, which is a... very low scale, yes. In the grand scheme, I think the post is more useless than harmful, but once more, if we're going to have 'active mods' (which I categorically object to as a major and harmful shift in the board culture) they need to post better than 'useless at best.'
@mietze said in Regarding administration on MSB:
@bored but any moderator clearly has the authority to speak as a mod. I mean that is absolutely crystal clear, even when there is not consensus.
But make comments? That’s already clearly part of the perks, no overstepping authority.
I guess this is the issue. I don't think there should be 'perks.' Their only function should be helping @Arkandel with what was supposedly too large of a workload in his original job, which was holding people to actual (hopefully posted) rules. They are volunteering to do something thankless, not superusers with 'privileges.'
@thatguythere A lot of the folks freaking over this were not around for that, so I really can't fault them for being unaware of that history or why people might be so cautious about it now (or come down so hard on people musing on doing something along those lines).
Innocent ignorance is a thing re: some objectors and it shouldn't be ignored re: why people might be taking offense at something that seems so off the wall to them. Ideally, now that it is known, that won't be as much of an issue.
@mietze Re: mods being able to speak here as mods? No kidding.
Look, if someone's going to get to wear the mod hat, they get to choose when they speak as one. Taking it, in this case, to be any more than a more official "MSB does not condone this kind of shit" kind of message is paranoia and, to me, an attempt to assign a more threatening tone to it than what exists.
MSB mods, clearly, do not support efforts to go troll a game, nor even the potential of anyone here trying to organize such a thing. We can agree that's fine and reasonable, can't we? What is the issue with using MOD VOICE to make that extra clear when it needs to be?
Taking this a step further, would MSB ban anyone here for trying to go through with stirring up shit on a game they have a problem with? How about we don't get to the point of needing to find out? If you have issues with a place, lay them out here for people to read and leave it at that.
MSB has a sort of strange dichotomy between the Hog Pit and just about every other part of the site in that the Hog Pit is the free-for-all place where the shit gets flung while everywhere else is intended to be more presentable. The Hog Pit is the dirty back alley, the dark basement, the creepy uncle nobody wants to talk to at the family gathering, whatever descriptor you want to use for it, but it serves an important and valuable purpose for bringing attention to the shittier side of MU*ing. It helps people be more informed about the bad stuff that happens on some places, whether it's because of players, staffers, or both, and it often works as a way of making sure people know what they may be getting into on a place, good or bad. Yes, sometimes piling on happens. That's human nature.
That doesn't mean it's okay to conspire to troll a place you don't like, and it doesn't mean it's bad for someone with the mod hat to remind people of that.
@bored it’s the same privileges they’ve always had to speak, though. And I think it’s clear that moderator consensus is not required before housekeeping (like moving a thread/splitting or saying something about off topic or this.). So there wasn’t anything special about this action.
@wolfs why are you directing this at me?
@mietze Because I started it as a reply to you talking about mods having the authority to speak as such, agreeing with that and the idea that this isn't some threat Auspice threw down at anyone.
@mietze I am not sure how you're failing to differentiate housecleaning (where I 100% agree they should do that without special consensus, unless... its a supermajor thread, maybe) and 'the same privileges they've always had to speak.' Adding mod voice to the latter is very problematic.
Additionally, the logging in to harass people is constantly called out here. I do it tons myself. Including when people are “kidding” about it.
It is a community standard that it’s unacceptable, which is why probably some folks felt insulted or wtf when a moderator responded as if it was not a community standard before any of the recent moderators were moderators.
Again, I don’t give a shit, I can understand why it might be eyerollery to people. I don’t think the action was either out of line with precedents that have been set nor does it make anything worse. But I also think it’s silly for people to get upset at feathers being ruffled because folks are still settling in to seeing very visible moderation.
@bored said in Regarding administration on MSB:
@thenomain I mean, damaging only on the scale of any of this shit being anything which anyone takes remotely seriously, which is a... very low scale, yes.
And yet, here we are.
if we're going to have 'active mods' (which I categorically object to as a major and harmful shift in the board culture) they need to post better than 'useless at best.'
So your summary of Auspice is 'useless at best'. Which means that you think her average is 'below useless', with no more evidence than "it looks bad if you don't trust them to begin with".
And this is constructive?
That was rhetorical. I'm now to the point where I don't think you're even trying. You are doing a good job of repeating the same words in different ways, but as far as bringing more to the discussion I think you're done. I know I am.
Which, in the grand scheme of things, isn't very much. Isn't it funny how we present things that are not, in the grand scheme of things, very important as critical and dire and worth going on about?
Well, I find this hobby worth going on about. That's why I'm here.
@bored Problematic to you, maybe, because you seem to be putting any stock in the idea that Auspice saying what she did, the way she did, equates to 'MSB admins have to keep their braying hyenas of a community in check' and/or 'MSB admins are posting transparent spin to hide how shitty their posters are.'
Ultimately, what Auspice and Ganymede do here is up to what Arkandel asks of them. Moving some threads is fine with me if they veer toward Hog Pit territory. However, I don't have an issue with any of them putting on the mod hat to remind people not to go fuck with a place whether it was being discussed openly or if someone went to one of them privately with a concern. When in doubt, by all means, err on the side of reminding people that it's not okay to do that here.
Some of this reads more like people who have a personal problem with Auspice just looking for an excuse to gripe, or some people just being against any form of visible moderation whatsoever. If that's the case, maybe find something more worth complaining about next time. This isn't it.
@miss-demeanor said in Regarding administration on MSB:
You aren't the only one that sees the not-so-subtle correlations between staffers who are acting in ways that they would ban people for on their own games. Its being noted with high amusement.
Consider this thirded emphatically.
General note: it's seriously annoying to see the board explode in a fit every time the mods do something, and it does. It's almost always the same handful of people complaining, and honestly, at this point, I wish they'd make their own forum, moderated in their preferred fashion, rather than dragging this one into the proverbial toilet of 'argue about every single mod action for pages on end'.
The staff/games parallel is not remotely off-base.
MSB the forum is now treating MSB the forum as it would a game on MSB the forum, and there is a point at which things become meta to the point of sheer absurdity. We passed that point weeks ago.
Oh fucking well.
@bored regardless of whether it’s problematic to anyone, it’s been done several times with no guidelines against it. I think it is very clear that mods can and shall speak up at their own discretion in whatever tone they please.
You can argue against it every time if you want to, but pretty sure it’s not going to change.
@surreality Its... MSB-ception!
@wolfs said in Regarding administration on MSB:
@tempest I'm not surprised you'd think that, but you're probably still annoyed that I dared to call you out on your victim-blaming bullshit and general attempts to draw attention to yourself.
Dang! You caught me!
