This has been an honest-to-goodness discussin on a mechanism to improve resolution of disputes in MA. What does everyone think? Would a review board be a good idea? Personally, I think it is, but I would need help on the logistics. The way RobL has proposed the idea makes sense to me.

What say you all?

quote:

---

Originally posted by RobL:
While member voting on warnings is a bad idea, It might be a good idea to try a staff member review system, where five or seven mods are picked at random whenever a complaint is logged in MA. A thread could be opened in the BR, and only the mods picked to review that specific warning can post in that thread, with an adminstrator acting as a judge. After a given set of time debating the facts and policy (like, say, 48 hours), and after reviewing the evidence and comments from the original complaint thread, a decision is made, the thread in the BR is closed and then moved to the MA forum so that everyone can read and see what was discussed.

After the decision is made, that's it - no more discussion or debate, the final decision is made, time to move on.

---

As to the question at hand, the mod involved would have already been able to weigh in during the initial thread in MA. After that, I do think that the co-mods in that same forum could be allowed to participate. Whether it looks like a conflict of interests or not, they can give insight as to the atmosphere of the forum itself.

Can we call ourselves "The Moderator High Council" or something equally cool?

The problem is if people decide to protest every single warning - the judges need to be able to pick and choose which ones they will address, because no troll has ever thought they were warned fairly.

However, I would like the MA forum just to be for requests for intervention only. The whole process of subjecting our every decision to review and ridicule by wordin, sturmde and the other TK vile-spewing bastards is simply demeaning, demoralizing and just plain bad for business.

The MA forum would be a request for intervention only. Once the request is made, the thread is closed, and the matter is discussed in ICQ or MSN Msgr. The discussions should remain PRIVATE imo. No need to embarrass the mod or the warned individual. If there is a reversal, the thread is amended and closed. If the warning is upheld, the thread is amended and closed. No further discussion of the matter.

This would end the countless threads opened by Jayson and the others, and would put the trolling critics like wordin out of business in so far as the second guessing of the mods. I have no doubt that the TK will cry havoc and let slip the dogs of spam again over the incident, but it would better serve the needs of the posters of this BBS in that their complaint need not be subject to peer ridicule.

One more thing, the member who gets to serve on this tribunal can't have had a warning in the active warnings list or be on probation in any way shape or form.

Just my insights...

Most mods don't hand out warnings for the hell of it, I know I sure don't. Usually if we hand them out, it's warranted. If it isn't and someone squawks, then other mods usually pipe up, either in here, or ICQ or MSN.

But then again, an appeals committee would take some heat off of Neroon.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kitty:
I think it's overkill. Presumably moderators are asked to volunteer because they are deemed responsible and reasonable even if every call they make is less than popular. I don't think it's necessary to give everyone a second chance at a warning, nor is it desirable to have moderators potentially scruntinized for every call they make. We already have a measure for checks in the system - Neroon. I think that's enough.

---

Well Neroon, doesn't have any real power. MA is mostly just public relations. We moved those complaints out of QSF so that forum would be more positive while concentrating the negativity in one place and sentencing a staff member to babysit it. Neroon does an excellent job, but the job itself is poorly designed. He's not to blame for that.

And in the long run, MA doesn't resolve anything. They complain. We tell 95% of them that they're being babies. And we go our separate ways. If we want an actual review of Mod Actions, then a reveiw board is the way to go.

quote:

---

originally posted by Kitty:
Nothing that happens here impacts anyone's education or employment or family or finances or anything important enough to justify so much scrutiny and so much extra work over a warning.

---

It's hard to argue with that. RobL doesn't even work here anymore and he takes this place much more seriously than I do.

We know what's going to happen, someone will complain about every warning. How do we choose which ones to send to the Review Board and which ones need reviewing? Do we need a screening board for the Review Board? Ugh.

And there is something to be said with trusting Mods judgement. And trusting us to own up to it when we're wrong. But I'm conflicted.

Of course, we could implement a kind of board without increasing work for the Mods. Just make the Admins do it. Seriously.

In that respect, we're just like Neroon or any of the other mods. We can advise, but when push comes to shove, that is all we can do with warnings.

So just saying "let the admins do it" won't work, unless we can overrule a mod, which probably is not something that would go down well with mods.

What if I acted as a filter about which actions (warnings vs non-warnings, etc.) should be reviewed? Okay, so the naysayers would merely claim this as a bid to "gain power" . THis is merely a stepping stoen to my eventual domination of the entire Internet! muhahahahaha!

But that would help weed out some of the more innocuous ones, wouldn't it?

I'd suggest a panel of three or five - mixed mods and posters (3 mods, 2 posters or 2 mods 1 poster), no admins (they have enough to do - and I think peer review is better), and nobody on the panel who has already posted in MA on the subject. (So if X rants in MA about his warning and gets all his cronies to join in, none of them are eligible - and likewise neither are his enemies, or the people who post 'pro-mod').

The advantages to this would be an improvement in PR, and a better 'feel' that warnings are unbiased.

The drawbacks are that a) trolls will demand review of every warning (hence the need for a filter - maybe a poster rather than Neroon?), b)extra work, effort and unwieldiness for those involved and c) a potential loss of mod morale (like we had much anyway!) if our decisions are constantly being questioned. Finally, I think there's a issue about mod-non-action... we get nearly as many complaints about 'you didn't warn X' as about warnings.. how do we review them?

Christian and I have both intervened in the past when we feel a decision was taken incorrectly. We just don't do it in public.
Other mods and admins frequently raise issues in this forum when they feel an issue raised in MA needs further attention.

So there are a few other layers in place here that joe member isn't aware of.

The majority of the "non-action" complaints seem to stem from people who feel they wee wronged for being warned themselves in the first place. And that is a valid point. THis usually crops up between forums, where different mods evaluate warning-worthy offense differently. Maybe this is an area we need to address as well. Consistency within forums is normally not a problem; consistency between them may be another matter.

As for including a regular member as part of the review team..... I am reluctant to do that. It would HAVE to be someone that we knew we could trust to handle it well and not an undetected dual and so forth. Plus, if this is to be reviewed in the way I envision it, this person would have to have access to the BR. OF course, seems as if EVERYONE has access these days.

timing is everything isn't it?

If there is to be no review board, then I HAVE to insist that all mods and admins keep checking in with the MA forum and address concerns as promptly as possible. If for no other reason then it will show people we are involved. Yes, some threads go on and on ad nauseum, so use your own judgement as to when you no longer feel the need to comment. Just make sure you give people earnestly asking questons and complaining that time of day.

Regardless, despite appearances I am not trying to get out of doing my job.

quote:

---

Don't know if a C&L statement (is that anything like a S&P) would do anything other than fan the flames of a perceived indifference.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by susannah:
This gives me a headache.

---

I agree.

This isn't life. This isn't business. This isn't congress. No one's livelihood, reputation or future is going to affected if I make a give them a questionable warning.

I agree with Jethro on this. No one's livelihood is at stake.

No matter what we do, the system will be flawed for someone, and someone will complain about it, whether it be a real complaint or not. just look at some of the threads in MA as an example right now.

Maybe we really could do it for the more questionable ones, but let's get real for a moment, half these disputes can be solved just by reposting the section of the rule you're enforcing, and leaving it at that. no other discussion.

Klptzyxm!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Verteron:
I think RobL must have been reading Terran's Policy.

---

RobL appears to be a mod at Terran now. I am waiting on them to give Barcode a forum.

quote:

---

No offense to them, but I think we should be coming up with our own stuff, don't you?

---

No, that is not a good reason not to do something. Why reinvent the wheel? Because it is suggested by Wordin is a good reason not to do something.

If we are going to make changes (which in this case, I hope we are not), let's make them on behalf of the people who come here to talk about Trek--not the people who come here to to fulfill their daily annoyance quota.

All in all, it seems like it would greatly increase the amount of work for mods and admins, with little payoff. If the review board refuses to overturn a warning, that doesn't mean the warned poster will be a satisfied customer. It'll just put an extra step between the warning and the complaints.

quote:

---

No, that is not a good reason not to do something. Why reinvent the wheel? Because it is suggested by Wordin is a good reason not to do something.

---

Indeed - I made a similar comment myself about something similar but unrelated.

All I'm saying as that (a) We're not TerranBBS, and (b) surely we have enough combined intelligence to (offset the drag from the others and ) come up with something unique and properly suited.

The very notion of a Moderator - an expert in their own field's area of expertise being over-ruled by fellow friends and colleuges is just stupid.

Normally, in most cases, it's pretty much clear cut who's right and who's wrong.

It's the Mod's perogative to make a judgement call. This is their call, and their's alone. No-one else.

If, however, this decision need to be intervened, and their is a strong outcry/demand, then a thread should be opened here in the BR to discuss it.

But, for all practical intents and purposes, Mods should have the final decision in their own forums.

If one fo the Admins wants to over-ride a Mod decision - then fine, provided that full and clear justification is given.

This, IMO, is a red-tape nightmare. Judges in Democratic courts for example do not combine to give a joint verdit on a case - they would only do so, and make a joint ruling in extreme circumstances.

Besides, the very fact is that this board is a demi-democracy at best - in the end it's christian and lisa who weild the true power in this forum - and if they don't like the idea, they'll deal with it their own way.

A Mod council would lead to nothing else but further red-tape, in-fighting, and friends voting for other friend's recommendations anyway.

quote:

---

Originally posted by daedalus5:
If one fo the Admins wants to over-ride a Mod decision - then fine, provided that full and clear justification is given.

---

Ah, but therein lies the problem I would face as an admin.

Sometimes it is a subjective call. There have been at least two occasions when it's seemed very clear to me that a call was wrong. (And no, I won't name names or give an example.) But basically, it would be my opinion against the opinion of a moderator. And in that case - how would I justify it, especially if a moderator is adamant that he or she is right?

THAT is why I rarely intervene in these things. A handful of times, I've got hold of the moderator and expressed my concerns over a call, and most times, it's like "Thanks for your concern, I really do appreciate it, but in all honestly, I feel I was right."

So I drop it, even if I feel it's a mistake. I have no desire to start a fight with a fellow moderator.

but i also think some changes could be made.

for instance, if a certain number of people come in to a thread and disagree with an action taken, one of the admins could be required to review the decision. not change it, review it. if that admin decided it should stand, fine... what that would accomplish is it would show that in larger arguments where there is a significant disagreement, someone will be there to at least consider the opposing viewpoints

take the recent warning PreHensile gave to Jayson with regards to his posting about a possible terrorist attack on monday night football... people were upset because once PreHensile came in and said "sorry, i'm not changing my mind", the argument basically went nowhere, and there was nothing anyone could do about it. if an admin had come in an official capacity and said "i see the arguments and think the warning was justified, so it wont be overturned", it would have done a lot to ease the situation, IMO

quote:

---

Sometimes it is a subjective call. There have been at least two occasions when it's seemed very clear to me that a call was wrong. (And no, I won't name names or give an example.) But basically, it would be my opinion against the opinion of a moderator. And in that case - how would I justify it, especially if a moderator is adamant that he or she is right?

THAT is why I rarely intervene in these things. A handful of times, I've got hold of the moderator and expressed my concerns over a call, and most times, it's like "Thanks for your concern, I really do appreciate it, but in all honestly, I feel I was right."

---

if a situation is so divided that there are enough people in disagreement, i have no problem with admins opinion "meaning more" than mods opinions. someone should make a final decision and it shouldn't be mod who originally gave out the warning, since that person will have certain biases after arguing for a whole thread

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cirrus:
even if there's no action taken, at least the members know someone is there to listen and consider their complaints

---

And that is my main goal here, a way to convey that we do care and do listen. The whole incident with PreHensile/Jayson is a case in point, regardless of how one feels about the validity of the warning itself. Yes we had plenty of involvement in there, but at the same time it was pretty clear that the majority of folks felt it was wrong. I don't recall how many staff agreed/disagreed with it, though.

Should we let the inmates run the asylum? Heck no. Yet can't we take some steps to show them we do care about their input? At least when we disagree with their view on a warning, we could use some more tact. Even when the forum gets a preponderance of the truly trivial, whiny complaints about the most innocuous of things how we respond speaks volumes to the rest of the people.

Granted, those wouldn't be the types of warnings to review anyhow.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lisa:
As far as Christian and I are concerned, the final word in MA comes from Neroon or one of the admins - well, as 'final' as people are going to get.
Anything that devalues that isn't going to be a good thing.

---

What exactly do you mean by "final" word? I know you don't mean that neither the Admins nor Neroon can tell another Mod to rescind a warning. But what short of that could be "final?"

I don't see the need for a special mod council, because we already have that, the Admins. They're Administrators, let's let them Administrate. IMO, an Admin should have the power to order Mods to rescind warnings, but I know that's not going to be approved. How about the Admins taking a vote on questionable Mod decisions (and let's admit it folks, we certainly make them from time to time)? If there's a tie, we can let Neroon be the tie breaker. If Lisa or Christian disagree they can then overrule.

Now, the Admins wouldn't do it on the drop of a hat, or for every troll who whines about his warning in MA. But when 2 or more Admins think that there's been something questionable, they can convene something in MA, and take a vote. They can make that record public or not. I don't think that matters. The Admins are supposed to be picked for their intelligence, their good judgement, their temperment, and their commitment to the board. I don't see why they shouldn't have this kind of authority.

Of course, I know I understand the meaning of the word "Administrator" differently than Christian. I'm still convinced that there's something being lost in translation.

quote:

---

from Verteron:
No offense to them, but I think we should be coming up with our own stuff, don't you?

---

Always steal from the best. The Declaration of Independence was basically stolen from John Locke. Shakespeare was one of the most notorious "borrowers" of English literature. If Terran has a good policy, then it shouldn't matter that we didn't come up with it first.

quote:

---

originally posted by Jethro Elvis:
Because it is suggested by Wordin is a good reason not to do something.

---

I should hope that you're saying that as a joke. Because discounting his ideas simply because he is misguided in his allegiances is not a logical reason. Yeah, I wish he were fighting on the side of the Angels, but he isn't. He is, however, doing exactly what we ask the dissenters to do. He's taking his complaints to the proper forum, he's putting forth rational and well thought out arguments. He avoids sniping as much as he can. And he seems to have the best interests of the board in mind. Of course, his idea of those interests may differ from some people in here, but that's no inherent sin. This guy is not RedQuacker reborn. He's from TrollKingdom, but he is not a troll. I'd hope that we would be capable of paying respect to the people who respectfully disagree with us.

quote:

---

Originally posted by where'sSaavik?:
I should hope that you're saying that as a joke.

---

I've actually had some fun undercutting him lately though.

quote:

---

Originally posted by where'sSaavik?:
I don't see the need for a special mod council, because we already have that, the Admins. They're Administrators, let's let them Administrate. IMO, an Admin should have the power to order Mods to rescind warnings, but I know that's not going to be approved. How about the Admins taking a vote on questionable Mod decisions (and let's admit it folks, we certainly make them from time to time)? If there's a tie, we can let Neroon be the tie breaker. If Lisa or Christian disagree they can then overrule.

Now, the Admins wouldn't do it on the drop of a hat, or for every troll who whines about his warning in MA. But when 2 or more Admins think that there's been something questionable, they can convene something in MA, and take a vote. They can make that record public or not. I don't think that matters. The Admins are supposed to be picked for their intelligence, their good judgement, their temperment, and their commitment to the board. I don't see why they shouldn't have this kind of authority.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Neroon:
Whadda ya mean "occasionally"?

---