The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Debating and/or Discoursing Mod Actions and Moderator Trust
Aioua
Ora OccidensOra OptimaRegistered User regular
Ora OccidensOra OptimaRegistered User regular
"GR Zombie did a milquetoast call out post on Reddit about ideological conflict in a gaming space that defines itself along specific ideological lines and some of yall act like he personally stabbed Draconius with a rusty trowel"
Did this have any effect on GR Zombie's ban?
No.
Was it even characterizing the ban itself as invalid or inappropriate? Also no, just that other non-mods were overstating the severity of GR Zombie's actions.
Yet this statement also merits a ban for fear it will, what? Encourage others to start offsite harassment? Even though the person who did that is banned?
It looks to me like this ban was done reactively, not as part of any community management philosophy but to save face in response to criticism from a personally unliked poster.
If this community is going to continue we need to address the growing lack of trust here, and moderation actions continue to be taken and discussed in the dark leaving the community outside the loop. Especially now that the mod team is the defacto leadership of the board but it's not actually a group that was ever selected by the community. Previously this was just how it was since we lived under the mandate of PA's authority but we've now been gifted to ourselves.
How do establish a path to a trusted moderation team in this new era?
Should there be more openness both in moderation descisions and deliberations?
Currently it's unclear who is making what decisions and who has what influence. (eg, we have semi-active mods, mods emeritus, an admin who doesn't have a leadership mandate but was just the only person left with the permissions...)
The system right now seems untenable.
Did this have any effect on GR Zombie's ban?
No.
Was it even characterizing the ban itself as invalid or inappropriate? Also no, just that other non-mods were overstating the severity of GR Zombie's actions.
Yet this statement also merits a ban for fear it will, what? Encourage others to start offsite harassment? Even though the person who did that is banned?
It looks to me like this ban was done reactively, not as part of any community management philosophy but to save face in response to criticism from a personally unliked poster.
If this community is going to continue we need to address the growing lack of trust here, and moderation actions continue to be taken and discussed in the dark leaving the community outside the loop. Especially now that the mod team is the defacto leadership of the board but it's not actually a group that was ever selected by the community. Previously this was just how it was since we lived under the mandate of PA's authority but we've now been gifted to ourselves.
How do establish a path to a trusted moderation team in this new era?
Should there be more openness both in moderation descisions and deliberations?
Currently it's unclear who is making what decisions and who has what influence. (eg, we have semi-active mods, mods emeritus, an admin who doesn't have a leadership mandate but was just the only person left with the permissions...)
The system right now seems untenable.
life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
Jacobkosh on
+6
This discussion has been closed.
Posts
All I see is a whole lot of words that say a whole lot of nothing, even reading the Ban thread.
So.
This is the actual reason; whether you agree or not is essentially immaterial. Our position is that offsite harassment is flatly out of bounds, and defending/minimizing/excusing/valorizing it (eg, by calling it a "callout") has literally no upsides and a whole lot of downsides: for instance, several forumers contacting the mods and Ramius both here and through other channels to say that they feel unsafe and targeted. This isn't a hypothetical, this is a real thing actually happening.
Maybe reading that, you scoff; maybe you think their feelings don't matter, because they're not sufficiently, idk, important or special?
But they matter to me; they matter to the other D&D mods past and present; they matter to Chu, who made this call, and owns it, and will happily talk about it with anyone who approaches him with a modicum of basic human decency.
With that said, I'm closing the thread.