Posts made by Ganymede

@sunny said in Regarding administration on MSB:

I literally feel that I cannot post in response to her 2 most recent posts to this thread without you telling me to 'knock it off, it's not helpful'.

If you feel this way, then you feel this way. I don't know what to tell you that can change how you feel, and it would be utterly too vain for me to suggest that I have the power to make you feel one way or the other.

I will say this: I wouldn't have said the same, and you know (or should know) that I wouldn't have said the same. But Auspice would be equally in the right to kick the soapbox from under me if I attempted to pull the whole "don't react on passion or under duress or when you've just woken up." Just because I've admitted to fault does not eliminate that fault.

If you are uncomfortable posting publicly about it, my PM box is open.

@kanye-qwest

I don't think the current situation is nearly on the same level of the United Heroes fiasco. Everyone is entitled to suspicion, but let's not unnecessarily conflate matters.

There's plenty to discuss. First, should moderators be posting at all other than from a MOD VOICE perspective? Second, if moderators spot what they consider to be unacceptable behavior, should they be the one to call it in? Third, supposing action is taken but other moderators disagree; how do we address the majority disagreement to the minority act? And so on.

Again, I don't mean to try and deflect things, but there is a meaningful discussion being had right now about this that I do not think should or ought to be public. It's not about an NDA; it's not about secrecy to protect the accused. What's said has been said, as plain as day, and, as I said, I am dealing with it.

@sunny said in Regarding administration on MSB:

I'm sorry if I'm giving the impression that I'm not hearing you. It is not my intent to silence concerns or this topic. At this time, I do not know how to make you feel otherwise; I responded as I felt I could and should.

I said that I did not think continuing to address the comment Auspice made was going to be helpful. I still don't think it is helpful, because I can see the post and make my own conclusions based on it. And, as I said to KQ, I was addressing the matter with Auspice.

EDIT TO ADD:

Just because Auspice has responded here does not mean the discussion has ended. Neither I nor Arkandel asked her to respond here.

@sunny said in Regarding administration on MSB:

Please address this. Without insulting or calling names. This is a REALLY BIG concern for me, right here. If one of the 3 mods is going to be free to take potshots at KQ and I and a few other people, we should probably just acknowledge that we're not welcome here and go.

MOD VOICE

Okay. I'm not sure how to start, as this is something that I've been pondering. If it sounds like I'm deflecting or avoiding the topic, I don't mean to be. But I want to say something because I feel it's important to say something.

Recent events have highlighted an issue that goes beyond whether a comment is marked with MOD VOICE or not, and it is a situation that we're all familiar with if you've played on a game where staff alts are allowed. There are two interests to balance: first, there's the interest in allowing staff, who are players, to play on a game that they are helping to run; and, second, there's the interest of ensuring that other players aren't concerned that any action taken against a staff alt will be met with an abuse of power (as opposed to justifiable reprisal, which is understandable).

I think that it is undeniable that, were I not a moderator, that my taking potshots at you or anyone else in the Hog Pit would be considered acceptable. But I am a moderator, and, regardless as to whether I put a MOD VOICE indicator above my comment, whatever I say may reasonably be construed as coming from the fingers of someone who has ability to abuse her power at will, with no apparent repercussions. But that perspective, no matter how reasonable, does not obviate the veracity of the message or comment. That is, if I say that something is true, the fact that my message carries with it an implicit threat of unjustifiable reprisal in the event of dissent does not mean that what I said is not true. (However, it is equally true that my comment may be considered true, whether right or wrong, by virtue of that moderator cap, regardless of whether I wear it or not.)

That aside, if Arkandel does something I disagree with, mod-voice or not, I'll take it up with him privately. I don't mind saying that I have a different opinion than him because, if you've read this forum for a while you will probably notice that Arkandel and I disagree on a lot of things. I see no value in engaging in a mod-voice v. mod-voice debate on a topic; if anything, that would exacerbate problems further. And if an issue is brought to me regarding another mod, and I say plainly -- and, perhaps vaguely -- that I'll address the matter, then I will do that, even if I don't post something up about it here.

As I've said before, I am addressing what has been said. And we are addressing the ambiguities. And I have talked with members about some of the recent events. We are, in fact, working.

I see your point, Sunny, and all I can say at this time is that the matter is being discussed, as thoroughly and vigorously as Arkandel hoped. About @Kanye-Qwest's comment, all I can say is that I'm not going to engage in a public discussion with Arkandel and Auspice about it, and my credibility as a voice of "let's not make knee-jerk reactions" is contradicted by recent events wherein I, in fact, did the very same thing. I don't think discussing the matter here further is helpful, but the discussion is continuing elsewhere.

@three-eyed-crow said in Regarding administration on MSB:

I'm glad the rules are being clarified, though, because oh gosh I hope no one is arguing they're crystal clear and consistent right now.

MOD VOICE

No. They are not.

@meg said in Regarding administration on MSB:

I can appreciate people's concerns about my story getting obfuscated, but when someone speaks up to share their RL experiences, it shouldn't matter where. They are choosing to share them there, and it can feel very silencing for a mod to come in and say 'not here'.

I understand that. As has been said, the confusion seems to be whether Auspice was talking as a mod or a poster; I think she made it clear it was the latter.

It is the same thing that happens in RL. You can't share your stories at work, because that is inappropriate. You can't share your stories at a party, because it will bring down the mood. Then people wonder why no one ever hears the stories that we all collectively have.

I also understand what you're saying here, but if someone told me about the abuse they suffered from their significant other I would still recommend that they talk to the police or a lawyer to know what their rights are. And if they told me they had something important to say of a sensitive nature, I would probably suggest moving aside so I can hear them better or so that they do not need to raise their voices over the din of the crowd.

@tat said in Regarding administration on MSB:

I don't think it's fair to ask people to make this presumption, at least not until there is a very long and clear history of clarity.

You're right, and that's why we're going to address the presumption/non-presumption in the new set of Rules of Engagement.

@kanye-qwest

MOD VOICE

And I am. Is there anything else helpful you wish to add?

@kanye-qwest

MOD VOICE

I think we're treading away from being helpful. Let's go back to talking about ways we can fix moderating.

As I said, we're working on things. Arkandel has asked me to prepare a "Rules of Engagement v 2.0" for the forum. The draft is made and being wrangled over. Part of it includes something on this topic.

@meg said in Regarding administration on MSB:

I have no way of knowing if she was speaking as just another poster or as a moderator.

We're working on making this clearer, and I'm not perfect on this either. It is safe to presume that unless I mark my comment clearly, I'm responding as a sour-old lawbot, and not as a moderator.

I concur with surreality's assessment. I thought your story was difficult, but important to tell. Putting in a massive, smoldering shit-fire of a topic obfuscates it in a way that I thought could be avoided. I cannot and do not speak for Auspice, but I might've suggested something similar to highlight your story rather than shut it down.

@wizz

It was a bit of self-deprecating humor.

@wizz said in Regarding administration on MSB:

Not just "This is against the rule," but also "This is against the rule, and this is what will happen. These are the options you have to appeal an action." Write it like a policy file on a MU*.

See, I'm not sure if I can get behind that.

Obviously, you don't want things going off the rails, like, let's say, if one of us threatened a long time poster with banning because she evidently had her panties in a knot, or something.

But one of the hallmarks of the justice system is having a punishment fit the crime. For example, Tempest's sarcastic title was misconstrued, and the worst thing would probably be to move it to the Hog Pit. Compare that to the fellow that repeatedly uses racist slurs in a way calculated to harass a single player in a fashion that causes 100 members to flag his posts for moderation. It's the same violation as Tempest's, but the violation should be punished far differently.

@sunny said in Regarding administration on MSB:

I agree that in typical operation that is the case, but we are not there yet.

I disagree.

I realize that you are speaking from a position of organizational operations, but in many cases I think that a rapid response is important. If you will recall the dogpiling accusations and incidences, had there been more timely intervention I believe the matters would have been addressed without escalating to where they ended up.

I look it from a professional practice perspective. If I am to work and depend on Arkandel and Auspice, then I will support their actions if they take them unless I have a substantial issue. Even so, I would raise that issue with them behind the scenes.

But we come from different backgrounds, and I appreciate that your approach has merit.

@Wizz

Consistency comes not only from taking action, but also in what action is taken. For example, I elected to move an entire thread rather than splitting. I did so because I believed the entire thing was going to devolve. I stand by the choice because, at that time, the thread was clearly devolving, should have been dealt with, and there's no need or imperative to save part of a building when the remainder is on fire. That said, it could have been split, and we facilitated a split after that fact.

Arkandel may have acted differently. Auspice may have forked the thread right from the start. We all moved based on the same rule, but we were moving in different ways. So, there's something to be said not only about taking action on a consistent basis but also taking the same action consistently in response to a situation.

For example, if someone refuses to comply with the "PLEASE REFRAIN FROM USING RACIAL SLURS" implied rule for the Mildly Constructive area, do we: (A) delete his posts; (B) move all posts and related responses to the Hog Pit; or (C) ban the offender? We haven't talked about it, but if all actions are potential remedies, then each of us might select a different one.

@sunny said in Regarding administration on MSB:

The first question for the next while for you guys really, really should be: why can this not wait until I can deal with this with my team?

In the case of forking a thread, my understanding is that forking early is a lot better than forking late.

Yes, I know there's a potential double-meaning to that.

@sunny said in Regarding administration on MSB:

Figure. This. Shit. Out. All three of you are smart people with reasonable moral and ethical compasses. That you're having this much of a difficulty is really confusing to me.

I don't think it's confusing as to why there seems to be such disparate opinions. We have drastically different personalities.

A few thoughts.

The best way to ensure consistency is letting one person make the decision to take action. That sort of eliminates the need for alternate moderators, as such; they become lackeys or workers. And that's not really what Arkandel was aiming for by adding Auspice and I. The purpose of adding more moderators is to ensure a more timely response to events as they occur.

The risk, however, is that there will be some inconsistency. If you can't tell, Auspice is very much a doer, Arkandel is a thinker, and I'm a cat-Nazi-lawyerbot. Unsurprisingly, our internal discussions tend to be broad.

We can provide clearer guidelines, but that doesn't guarantee consistent enforcement. Consistent enforcement either comes as a result of joint decision-making, which takes some time, or a single authority. Frankly, I'm not sure what's best.

If we divide duties up, that might help. The two areas that probably need the most moderation are the Advertisement and Mildly Constructive threads; other areas, seem to draw less controversy when action is taken. But, going back to what I said about wanting some assurance of timely intervention, enforcement will be more sporadic if and when moderators are unavailable due to RL or something.

@sunny said in Regarding administration on MSB:

How was calling us all pathetic and saying that we were lying about something that was demonstrably true even remotely constructive?

It wasn't. That's not why I moved it. I moved it because it clearly was heading into SUGAR WE'RE GOING DOWN SWINGING territory. Admittedly, the topic could have been split because the initial posts were constructive, even if there was little hope they would be responded to be UH's staff.

Enarei's posts crossed the line from the start, actually. In his response to Phase-Face, he called her a "child." That said, it was the entire follow-up from there that led me to believe that the topic should probably be moved as a whole.

So, to be clear, what Enarei said and did was not cool, I never thought it was cool, and that's part of the reason why the topic was moved.

@apos said in Regarding administration on MSB:

I think it's always going to be tone and whether or not a post is suggesting constructive changes ... .

I think we can agree that this, too, is pretty nebulous.

@tempest said in Regarding administration on MSB:

Outside of that, when we already have one UH thread in the hog pit, and one outside of it that is mostly fine until some shill comes along and picks a fight with everybody, and then it gets moved entirely on a whim....

It wasn't moved on a whim. It was flagged for moderation, and was brought to our attention. And then I moved it.

After at least one person WARNED and ASKED you guys to not do it (I think it was @Three-Eyed-Crow?) because of that, I am just facepalming.

Just because one person or a group of people ask for splitting does not necessarily mean it will happen. However, we are working with Three-Eyed Crow to split and move. Like, right now.

Then after doing exactly what they wanted you to do, you threaten to ban me because of a thread title I use.

No, I threatened to do it because your topic was flagged for moderation and clearly (in my opinion) fell outside of what the Mildly Constructive forum was for. The reminder to follow the rules was heavy-handed because I did expect more from you as a long-time poster.

That said, what I did was wrong. It was a knee-jerk reaction, for which there are a myriad of reasons completely unrelated to you. So, it was wrong, and you may judge me poorly for that.

IDK what world you live in, but "LITERALLY WORSE THAN HITLER" is a joke. There's no way for that to be taken seriously. Sure, I could've titled it better. But jesus, it could've been a lot worse, too.

In my world, that is not a joke. I'm pretty sure the same for many others. You could have titled it better. You didn't. Even so, what I did was unjustifiable.

So, about fair moderation now? Your suggestions?

@tempest

There was that, the dogpiling, the wanting to try and avoid becoming what WORA became, etc. Frankly, if I recall, you had a hand in pushing for moderation.

To your credit, it has kind of worked. Membership's up. Topics are no longer just swirling around the old World of Darkness toilet.

Look, I don't mind being taken to task. I don't. I will admit that I was frustrated and flippant when I saw what you had posted. My reaction was, literally, "doesn't she know better?"

But, c'mon. Admit it: you like to push a bit because pushing is what makes things change. It makes life more interesting. You do it; you know it.

I like your GIFs just fine. I don't mind when you push the envelope a little bit. If you'll help come up with some ideas regarding fair moderation, I'll stop being a rusty, cunty old bint, all right?

@kanye-qwest said in Regarding administration on MSB:

If you just want to ban spammers and 4chan trolls, fine. No need to hammer anything out. If you want to be threatening longtime posters with nebulous "you'll be unwelcome", or make suggestions on content in the hog pit, you probably ought to have your story straight. Both for yourselves, and so people will know what to expect and whether or not they want to expect it.

This is a good idea. We've been trying to work as a team of equals, but maybe a delegation of responsibility would be better.

@tempest said in Regarding administration on MSB:

Yes, just randomly move an entire thread instead of waiting for them to show you how to do it properly.

But moving the entire thread was the intended action. There was nothing random about it.

@tempest said in Regarding administration on MSB:

Crazy idea, if you can't spend 5 minutes learning the commands/etc to moderate a forum....

Maybe don't moderate a forum?

Crazy idea, but if two out of three moderators know a particular command well enough and there is no need for immediate action, maybe waiting for a walkthrough on your first attempt is wiser than tinkering on one's lonesome and risking the obliteration of some posts.