Moderator #3: call for nominations

[Tannin]

It's time to select a moderator again. So far we have chosen:

First Moderator
18 month term, 1st January 2001 to 30th June 2003: Flagreen

Second Moderator
18 month term, 1st April 2001 to 30th September 2003: Mercutio

The third moderator will serve the usual 18 month term and be appointed on 1st July. My successor as Chairman will appoint the final two moderators on 1st October this year and 1st January 2003. Any Storage Forum member is eligable, excepting only Flagreen and Mercutio (who are already moderators) and Handruin (who, as Webmaster, has super-moderator powers already).

A moderator needs to be a reasonably frequent visitor here, needs to be fair-minded and commited to free speech, wise enough to know when it's best to just do nothing, but still strong enough to take action when it's needed.

While it is the Admin Team that is responsible for Storage Forum, all members are entitled to have their say in matters of this nature, which is why I am calling for nominations here, rather than in the private admin forum.

Your nominations please gentlemen......

[Mercutio]

If I may, I'd also suggest that perhaps a non-US resident get the nod this time. I'm up entirely too often during the middle of the Aussie day but keeping miscreants like James at bay probably requires someone who *isn't* being deprived of sleep to do it.

time? Pradeep? Jake?

[CougTek]

I propose our Bartender.

[Mercutio]

I'd second that one, too.

[James]

Why not DB? :)

[Buck]

I propose an Aussie too. Time, Pradeep, or Jake the Dog.

[Bartender]

Thank you for your votes, but I am only a bartender. I will most likely miss something related to warez and mistakenly edit what the group considers appropriate speech.

[flagreen]

Thank you for your votes, but I am only a bartender. I will most likely miss something related to warez and mistakenly edit what the group considers appropriate speech. Most likely you'll never have to do a thing. Give it a shot. Come to think of it, give me a shot too. Wiskey if you please.

[Rocco Siffredi]

I'd gratefully do it, but unfortunately from this Saturday till early September I won't be online (or at the computer) for more than a few minutes a day.

Unless you don't mind :lol:

[Bartender]

How about electing two moderators for a given period of time - preferably in contrasting time zones. Plus, I would reduce the time period from 18 months down to 6 months. This may make moderator election easier and moderation more consistent. Then again, our traffic may not justify so much control.

[James]

I don't think it does either. Plus elections every 6 months seems more likely to annoy the membership than improve quality of moderation (given we've been running for over six months already and have had the sum total of ... hmmm... let me see... one... errrr... one moderation event, and a provoked one at that).

[Tannin]

STUPID BLOODY CAT! I just lost an entire long post. :(

[Tannin]

Shall we try again then?

It seems a little late to start complaining about the moderator appointment policy now, gentlemen. The whole question of conduct and moderation has been a vexed one - probably the single most contentious issue that we have dealt with here.

Back before we had any policy, discussion of it draggged on and on for months, and was quite often acrimonious. Eventually, with relations on the Admin Team at an all-time low, there was a major reorganisation. As the new Chairman, and having seen for myself the impossibility of all twelve of us creating a workable policy that every one of us agreed on anytime this century, I then asked Mark Turner to take charge of the entire question of conduct and moderation, to pick as many or as few people as he saw fit (be they Admin Team members or General Members), and produce us a workable policy in the shortest practical period of time.

Mark - and after Mark had to step down to attend to family matters, Mercutio - got together with representativies of the major points of view and they hammered out the present policy within a few weeks. While I doubt that anyone was 100% satisfied with it, I think everyone was satisfied enough to feel comfortable about going along with it. We accepted their proposal right away, and the result is what you see.

I doubt that there is a single member here who agrees with the moderation policy in every detail (I certainly don't) but it is workable, it does seem to be as fair as is reasonable, it is broadly acceptable to all, and above all, it is already in place. This was a classic case of "'good enough' next week" as opposed to "'perfect' next year".

So, by all means discuss and ponder and criticise and work out ways to improve the current scheme. No-one claims it is perfect, and there are undoubtedly ways to improve upon it. But given the great difficulty we had in developing the policy in the first place, don't expect people to be too keen on changing it just yet.

Stupid cat!

[CougTek]

STUPID BLOODY CAT! I just lost an entire long post. :(
Maybe you should try to make your cat bark?

[Tannin]

Ha! Funny you should say that. :) Her name is "Woof".

[Prof.Wizard]

I still believe the moderator is not something needed for the time being for these forums. Or if he/she's really needed, there should be two-three max in alternating positions every 6 months, as one said above.

C'mon, it's not a big deal every six months choose 3 candidates.
HOWEVER, let me again say that because of the nature of these forums (we're almost all pals from old SR), there is no need to care too much about these issues.

The reviewing of the threads IMO should be on peer-to-peer basis. If a thread contains unlawful or disturbing post(s) we can always yell altogether, and the moderator delete/edit it.

The moderator should be only an executive figure, IMO.

[Prof.Wizard]

Moreover, I strongly disagree that moderators can see IPs and they can delete/edit posts without (after the editing) an indication on the thread in question that "this post has been edited by [Moderator] on [date]"...

These two are serious flaws for me.

[Tannin]

Prof, as I understand it, any moderator can edit or delete any post, but only under certain fairly clearly defined circumstances, and if they do, then they are also required to (a) save the original, unedited post in the Moderator's Forum (to which only the mods, the Chairman and the Webmaster have access), and (b) justify their action to the other mods.

The point of having a panel of five moderators is not to increase the power of the mods - in fact it is the exact opposite, it is to make the individual mods responsible for their actions to a committee of their peers. The moderation comittee has the power to over-ride any individual mod, and (at least in theory) the Admin Team has the power to over-ride the Mod Committee.

So, next time you insult Flagreen and he deletes your post (not that either of these things would happen, but just for the sake of example), he then has to justify his actions to the moderation committee. Eventually that will be the other four mods (when there are another four mods), but at present we have a temporary arrangement where Santilli and P5_133XL (who both helped set up the rules for this) sit in on that committee so as to make sure that no-one gets the short end of the stick. Also, the current Chairman and the current Webmaster have observer status there. All in all, I'm pretty confident that there is a good, solid set of checks and balances in place.

Now, is there any rule that says a mod has to insert a statement saying "this post edited/deleted by me for such-and-such a reason"? The mod certainly does have to declare his action in the Mod Forum, but does he have to also declare it in the public forum (the Pub and Brewary, let's say) where there moderation event took place? I'm not sure. Mercutio would know. But it seems to me that the normal practice would be for the mod to do so, and that only in exceptional circumstances (such as a Vambat666-type attack) should he not make such a statement. But I'm not sure if there is a ruling on this. As I said, I think Mercutio would know. This is his department after all.

[Prof.Wizard]

Prof, as I understand it, any moderator can edit or delete any post, but only under certain fairly clearly defined circumstances, and if they do, then they are also required to (a) save the original, unedited post in the Moderator's Forum (to which only the mods, the Chairman and the Webmaster have access), and (b) justify their action to the other mods.

The point of having a panel of five moderators is not to increase the power of the mods - in fact it is the exact opposite, it is to make the individual mods responsible for their actions to a committee of their peers. The moderation comittee has the power to over-ride any individual mod, and (at least in theory) the Admin Team has the power to over-ride the Mod Committee.
You miss the point Tannin. That already bestows you more power than I (personally speaking, of course) would ever want to give you.

So, next time you insult Flagreen and he deletes your post (not that either of these things would happen, but just for the sake of example), he then has to justify his actions to the moderation committee. Eventually that will be the other four mods (when there are another four mods), but at present we have a temporary arrangement where Santilli and P5_133XL (who both helped set up the rules for this) sit in on that committee so as to make sure that no-one gets the short end of the stick. Also, the current Chairman and the current Webmaster have observer status there. All in all, I'm pretty confident that there is a good, solid set of checks and balances in place.
Why should he delete a post of mine? Because I insulted him? This is exactly what I'm talking about dude. I don't know what happened exactly between JtD and flagreen, but if I ever insult him and he deletes/edits my post I'll be really pissed. :x What if he insults me? (of course he won't, but for the sake of the scenario...)


Now, is there any rule that says a mod has to insert a statement saying "this post edited/deleted by me for such-and-such a reason"? The mod certainly does have to declare his action in the Mod Forum, but does he have to also declare it in the public forum (the Pub and Brewary, let's say) where there moderation event took place? I'm not sure. Mercutio would know. But it seems to me that the normal practice would be for the mod to do so, and that only in exceptional circumstances (such as a Vambat666-type attack) should he not make such a statement. But I'm not sure if there is a ruling on this. As I said, I think Mercutio would know. This is his department after all.
The rules are made by all forum members or at least, by the boss-of-it-all... handruin. I know that handruin agrees with all (or almost all) your points, but I strongly disagree with the current practices.
No moderator should see IPs. And no moderator should delete/edit posts without the "post edited" sign.

You know, the whole thing reminds me of the UN Security Council and the permanent members which can always veto a decision... Thus, I don't see a day when the UNSC will ever be made of non-permanent members with equal rights and powers. That's why UN is a sock puppet organization...

You're a smart guy, do the analogy.

[Tannin]

Me? Err, where do you get that from? I am not a moderator. I can't edit or delete your post. Yes, like Webmaster Handruin, I have the technical ability to do so at present, but that is a sort of historical accident and will probably not last for too much longer anyway. But if I were to actually use that ability, I would be out on my ear faster than you could say "Jack Robinson". The same goes for Handruin. Neither of us would want to live with the disgrace that we would rightly be in were we to abuse our powers like that.

I have edited posts: obviously the FAQ thread which is the reason I happened to end up with edit powers in the first place, and twice I have made the minimum needed change in another member's post to rescue a thread from a scrolling-off-the-page URL - and in both cases, I posted a notice to that effect. By the strict letter of the law, I should not have done that either: but I made no effort to hide the fact, made it plain to all observers exactly what I had done, and stand ready to undo those very benign changes on request.

Prof: only a moderator can edit or delete your post, and the moderators are (a) carefully chosen to be the most trustworthy and honest people we can find, and (b) restricted by a fairly comprehensive set of guidelines as to what they may or may not edit/delete, and (c) required to save any and all material posted and then edited or deleted so that their action can be reversed if the moderation commitee feels that they have over-stepped the mark.

I'll deal with your other points in a moment, in a seperate post.

[Prof.Wizard]

Thanks. Do so.

In question:
-18-month rotations of moderators
-ability to see IPs
-ability to edit without the original poster knowing it
-what happens in case of "power abuse"

[Tannin]

Why should he delete a post of mine? Because I insulted him? This is exactly what I'm talking about dude.

This is why one of the primary moderation guidelines is that no moderator shall take action in any dispute in which he or she is personally involved. I'm paraphrasing here, but that is the sense of it. This is also the reason why we have so many moderators: so that in the case (say) of a dispute between you and Mercutio, some other person who has no personal axe to grind is the responsible moderator. You can pick a fight with Merc and be quite certain that he will not mod your posts, because the rules explicity forbid it. Flagreen can mod you, if he judges that you have gone beyond the bounds of reasonable discussion such that you are posing a menace to Storage Forum, and if he is prepared to justify his action before the entire Moderation Comittee (minus Mercutio, who must sit out because he is personally involved). But Mercutio can't. Or, pick a fight with Flagreen, and the reverse applies.

You can see why the policy is to have a total of five moderators. If you imagine for a moment that - sticking to my example of you and Mercutio having a big blue - Flagreen is away on a tropical holiday for three weeks, and you (or Merc) are really pushing it - posting foul personal abuse or links to warez or something of that nature - you can see that there is a real benefit in having enough mods on the panel to be sure that there is someone who is not personally involved to (a) safeguard your right to free speech, and (b) safeguard the rights of the other members to enjoy Storage Forum free of whatever anti-social filth you are spewing out.

(Not that you would do such a thing, of course. But Tea might.)

[Tea]

I would not!

[Prof.Wizard]

This is why one of the primary moderation guidelines is that no moderator shall take action in any dispute in which he or she is personally involved. I'm paraphrasing here, but that is the sense of it. This is also the reason why we have so many moderators: so that in the case (say) of a dispute between you and Mercutio, some other person who has no personal axe to grind is the responsible moderator. You can pick a fight with Merc and be quite certain that he will not mod your posts, because the rules explicity forbid it. Flagreen can mod you, if he judges that you have gone beyond the bounds of reasonable discussion such that you are posing a menace to Storage Forum, and if he is prepared to justify his action before the entire Moderation Comittee (minus Mercutio, who must sit out because he is personally involved). But Mercutio can't. Or, pick a fight with Flagreen, and the reverse applies.
Good to know. Then explain me what happened between JtD and flagreen. :-? Did flagreen edit a post?


posting foul personal abuse or links to warez or something of that nature
I would never do that, sanity permitting...

...you can see that there is a real benefit in having enough mods on the panel to be sure that there is someone who is not personally involved to (a) safeguard your right to free speech, and (b) safeguard the rights of the other members to enjoy Storage Forum free of whatever anti-social filth you are spewing out.
Fair enough. I understand. Actually, I find that moderators and the job CougTek is doing should be unified. I've noticed when I'm submitting news in the frontpage (morning in Europe) I see them online after 5-6 hours... Someone should be appointed to help on the frontpage cause it's not covered enough IMO.


(Not that you would do such a thing, of course. But Tea might.)
She would never do such a thing. Tannin, I believe you maltreat her...

[Tannin]

I've typed more than I care to in one night already, and Tea is jumping up and down shouting at me to give her a turn, so I'll be really brief on these things:

Prof, you asked about:


-18-month rotations of moderators
-ability to see IPs
-ability to edit without the original poster knowing it
-what happens in case of "power abuse"

The 18-month term was chosen, if I remember correctly, because it seemed to provide a balance between the conflicting goals of (a) having moderators held responsible for their actions by virtue of having a relatively short period in the job, and (b) having consistency over time, so that members can have a reasonable chance of getting to know what is considered acceptable and what is not.

The ability to see IPs is controversial. My own view is that it is pretty pointless having moderators if they can't even work out if a new member is really a new member or just It's Fubar back again to torment us under another name. And in any case, what does an IP tell anyone? Hey, I'm on 203.134.22.92. Does anybody care? But not everyone agrees with me.

I'll leave the "ability to edit without the original poster knowing it" question to someone better qualified than me. So far as I know, this is not the case, but either P5_133XL or Mercutio could give you a more authorititave answer.

What happens in case of Power abuse? So far as I know, there is no explicit mechanism in place for this, and it would be handled under the general catch-all proceedures, which (it seems to me) are perfectly capable of dealing with it.

First up, the offender would have to front the Moderation Committee, which would, I expect, take appropriate action. This might be a formal warning, a requirement to make a public apology, or a recommendation to the Chairman that the offending Mod have his powers removed. (This is not an exhaustive list, just some possible things that occurred to me. Only the third one of them is actually described in the Moderation Guidelines.)

Secondly, should there be no satisfactory resolution, the injured party should contact the Chairman (who is empowered to remove a moderator in case of special need), and failing the Chairman, the Final Arbiter (or "King"), who is empowered to remove the Chairman if he has to. (That is P5_133XL.) And, of course, you need only send a message to any member of the Admin Team, and that person will (if he is even half doing his job) will bring the matter up for discussion by, and if need be action by, the Admin Team.

Now: any more questions? Or can I let Tea have a turn at the keyboard now?

[Prof.Wizard]

The 18-month term was chosen, if I remember correctly, because it seemed to provide a balance between the conflicting goals of (a) having moderators held responsible for their actions by virtue of having a relatively short period in the job, and (b) having consistency over time, so that members can have a reasonable chance of getting to know what is considered acceptable and what is not.
This is definitely tooooooo looooooong. I mean, I might be doing my thesis in a year and a half. What if you ever nominated me by that time? I could never accept. Six months is enough for the above goals you named. Com'n, six month is even the EU member states presidency rotations. It's enough.


The ability to see IPs is controversial. My own view is that it is pretty pointless having moderators if they can't even work out if a new member is really a new member or just It's Fubar back again to torment us under another name. And in any case, what does an IP tell anyone? Hey, I'm on 203.134.22.92. Does anybody care? But not everyone agrees with me.
A-HA! But on the other hand I might want to create another persona to have a laugh with you (you know YOU what I mean, don't you? :wink: ) and the moderators already know it. And because the members I would love to make a laugh (The Giver, Mercutio) are in office with this power, it already spoils my joke. :(
Hey, even if Fubar changed a zillion personas we would still be able to intercept and counter his unique "style". I don't think that IPs are needed for this. (actually by giving me your IP now- if you run ICQ- I can always "nuke" you)
The IPs IMHO should be known only to handruin. Only he should be able to ban a member or let us know his true identity.



I'll leave the "ability to edit without the original poster knowing it" question to someone better qualified than me. So far as I know, this is not the case, but either P5_133XL or Mercutio could give you a more authorititave answer.
OK, let's see what they will say.


What happens in case of Power abuse? So far as I know, there is no explicit mechanism in place for this, and it would be handled under the general catch-all proceedures, which (it seems to me) are perfectly capable of dealing with it.
Sue him! :lol:


...the offender would have to front the Moderation Committee, which would, I expect, take appropriate action. This might be a formal warning, a requirement to make a public apology, or a recommendation to the Chairman that the offending Mod have his powers removed. (This is not an exhaustive list, just some possible things that occurred to me. Only the third one of them is actually described in the Moderation Guidelines.)

Secondly, should there be no satisfactory resolution, the injured party should contact the Chairman (who is empowered to remove a moderator in case of special need), and failing the Chairman, the Final Arbiter (or "King"), who is empowered to remove the Chairman if he has to. (That is P5_133XL.) And, of course, you need only send a message to any member of the Admin Team, and that person will (if he is even half doing his job) will bring the matter up for discussion by, and if need be action by, the Admin Team.
Do you have a degree in Jurisprudence? :lol:

[Tea]

You are tooooo yoooung Prof! Tannin says 18 months is hardly any time at all. Which, when you are his age, it probably isn't. But after all, Tannin is 42, which is almost as much as 100, I think. (I get confused after 20. I run out of toes.) Anyway, I shouldn't vote for you as a mod.

I'd vote for you on the Admin Team though. That is, I'd vote for you if I was real, but I'm not and I don't think I get to vote at all. Which is NOT FAIR! How come only real peope get to have any power around here?

[Tannin]

A degree in Jurisprudence? Err, let me check. .... Keys, wallet, bus ticket, $2.55 in small change ... Nope. Not on me. Why? Have you lost one?

ICQ is that insecure? Hmm. I rarely run it anyway, but now I feel even less inclined to do so. Tell me more about this, please Prof. (A seperate thread would be better.)

The IP address thing, as I mentioned, is controversial. My guess is that about 2/3rds of members take the same view that I do, and 1/3rd agree with you. But that's just my guess. Currently mods do have the power to see IPs. The matter came up for discussion by the Admin Team a week or two ago, but I decided to let it sit for a while - sometimes we make wiser decisions by giving ourselves time to think things over - and I expect that the incoming Chairman will make a determination sometime in July. This is what we Aussies call "the flick pass". :wink:

[Prof.Wizard]

I don't know where did you get that percentages (2/3 and 1/3), Tannin, but whatever...

BTW, who are the "Hidden" members I sometimes see logging on on these forums?

[Prof.Wizard]

Got it. It's a setting in the Profile. :)

[Mercutio]

By the moderator guidelines, no editorial action to a post can be made with out 1.) the original copy is copied to the moderators forum. 2.) A notation is made in the remnant of the original post indicating the content of the material that required editorial action.

Look at the single moderation that has been made to see this policy in action.

Finally, the job of the admins and the job of posting to the front page are different things. CougTek and Handruin are the only ones in charge of that, as a sub-section of their other responsibilties here.

[Prof.Wizard]

Yeah Mercutio, but I can't see the Moderators forum to know that.

[Mercutio]

There are formal guidelines in place. There are a number of very trustworthy individuals acting in oversight of moderation. There is a point where you're just going to have to trust that the right thing is being done.
Most of the folks in the admins group can't see us in the mods group, anyway, but still believe that the task before us is still performed per our guidelines.

So far as things go, the moderator and admin forums are both very boring places compared to the rest of the site. Believe me when I say you aren't missing much.

[Prof.Wizard]

What happens in case of Power abuse? So far as I know, there is no explicit mechanism in place for this, and it would be handled under the general catch-all proceedures, which (it seems to me) are perfectly capable of dealing with it.
Two examples...


the game is lost because you chose not to play fair and without respect. it's pretty lame of you to claim i was incapable of honest self-examination, lacking in personal growth and "sad" when you are the one that went back and edited your post so it said something quite less then you intended.
This is when flagreen don't know what he edited exactly, but used his mod power to change a statement. Of course you "Mod Forum" guys know of it all, but what about us? Why shouldn't we laugh with the rest of the crew?


It's flagreen. And my hand is nowhere near the "IP" button, so don't start that again.
For some reason, the Mirror's location is flagreen-esque.
Again a scenario of POSSIBLE (don't get me wrong on this Sam, please!) power abuse.
I guess Mercutio without a try can always find who's my 2nd persona in these forums. Just checks the IP and then my fun goes away... :cry:

YES, I HAVE A 2ND PERSONA! I GUESS I GOT MAD TOO WITH ALL THESE "SHIZO-POSTERS"... :drl:

[Prof.Wizard]

There are formal guidelines in place. There are a number of very trustworthy individuals acting in oversight of moderation. There is a point where you're just going to have to trust that the right thing is being done.
Most of the folks in the admins group can't see us in the mods group, anyway, but still believe that the task before us is still performed per our guidelines.
Hey WTF is going on here? :x
I swear I didn't have a damn clue about these things going on. "Trustworthy individuals"? Who are you people? The Illuminati? The Majestic 12?! What the...

Am I considered an untrusty member that should be kept to a need-to-know basis? By whom? By YOU?! And why you and not, let's say, Rocco?



So far as things go, the moderator and admin forums are both very boring places compared to the rest of the site. Believe me when I say you aren't missing much.
Again, let me repeat I'M NOT interested for the time being. I just wanna know I have the possibility to know what my peers know. And I consider you a peer, Mercutio, albeit all these things about trustworthy NSA stuff you've thrown to me...

[Mercutio]

I'll admit I didn't try to follow along with Flagreen and Jake's recent exchange. This is an argument for more mods, I suppose. I just couldn't read many of the things that were being written given other things going on.

When any post is edited, I think the BBS makes an indcation of it with the post, "[This post edited by Flagreen on ..."] . So you'll know if edits are made, at least.

[Mercutio]

The group is Handruin, Tannin, P5_133XL, Flagreen, Clocker, Adcadet, Groltz, Pradeep, time, James, NRG, CougTek, and myself. Anyone there you don't think trustworthy? Originally Davin was part of our group. James replaced him.
That was at a time when there were almost no formal rules here.

We don't think so, either.

[Mercutio]

The group is Handruin, Tannin, P5_133XL, Flagreen, Clocker, Adcadet, Groltz, Pradeep, time, James, NRG, CougTek, and myself. Anyone there you don't think trustworthy? Originally Davin was part of our group. James replaced him.
That was at a time when there were almost no formal rules here.

Anyone in that list not worthy of trust?

We didn't think so, either.

[Mercutio]

Note that I posted again instead of editing an existing post. Does that tell you anything?

[Prof.Wizard]

And why not Handruin, Buck, Koggit, iGary,... ..., and myself?
Is it who comes first gets the place? So, should I blame Tannin for having my e-mail address wrong and didn't come a couple of weeks earlier?

Hey, I know and understand that all this sounds and [b]is trivial... but I'm really upset so many things in these forums are beyond my control without a real reason, and without knowing it for so long...

I understand that "someone has to do the job"... CouchTest for the frontpage, Tannin-Mercutio for the moding, etc... but I wanna know the procedures of getting that persons to the jobs.

And CouchTest is dreaming when the sun is up here in Europe. We need to place another guy there ASAP. One is not enough.
(handruin has access in that page but he lives in the States too- same issue)

PS. I don't mean I don't find trustworthy the members of the oh-mighty High Priest Council, but why am I considered a "mortal" in a forum I believe I contribute so much (on and off topic)...?
PPS. What's hidden in SF?

[Prof.Wizard]

Note that I posted again instead of editing an existing post. Does that tell you anything?
Do you want me to thank you for this?
You MUST do it this way! Moderators should edit inappropriate content, not typos or intentions...

[Mercutio]

Tannin is not a moderator. Tannin has the ability to edit posts *specifically* to edit the forum FAQ. That's it. Flagreen and I are moderators. There will be a third very shortly.

I'm not suggesting that every moderator has a perfect record. Shortly after I got mod power I corrected a misspelled word in one of my posts, for instance (just to see how the process worked). It might be said that checking the giver's IP was wrong as well.

Deciding who got a job was a matter of who volunteered or was elected, depending on the job. Coug volunteered to be frontpage-guy. Tannin was elected chairman.

[flagreen]

What happens in case of Power abuse? So far as I know, there is no explicit mechanism in place for this, and it would be handled under the general catch-all proceedures, which (it seems to me) are perfectly capable of dealing with it.
Two examples...


the game is lost because you chose not to play fair and without respect. it's pretty lame of you to claim i was incapable of honest self-examination, lacking in personal growth and "sad" when you are the one that went back and edited your post so it said something quite less then you intended.
This is when flagreen don't know what he edited exactly, but used his mod power to change a statement. Of course you "Mod Forum" guys know of it all, but what about us? Why shouldn't we laugh with the rest of the crew?
Wrong Prof - This not when I changed what I originally wrote to Jake. If you had bothered to read and post my explanation to Jake about this you will see that my editing of my own words was being done as Jake was replying to them unbeknownst to me. The least you could have done was to talk to me about it first if you had a problem with it.

[CougTek]

Am I considered an untrusty member that should be kept to a need-to-know basis?
Do you really want an answer?


Again, let me repeat I'M NOT interested for the time being.

And why not Handruin, Buck, Koggit, iGary,... ..., [b]and myself?

I'm really upset so many things in these forums are beyond my control without a real reason...

I wanna know the procedures of getting that persons to the jobs.

We need to place another guy there ASAP. One is not enough.
Find the mistake between the first quote and the one below. Anyone still wonders why I don't want him on the admin team AND in my legs for the front page?


but why am I considered a "mortal" in a forum...Read what you are writing and you should find the answer. Besides, there are no Gods here, just people with a little more responsablilities (and I mean responsabilites, not "powers").

Enough.

[Prof.Wizard]

Wrong Prof - This not when I changed what I originally wrote to Jake. If you had bothered to read and post my explanation to Jake about this you will see that my editing of my own words was being done as Jake was replying to them unbeknownst to me.
So... editing of your own words?
And why should you edit your own words? What's said is said. Create another post if you want to restate something. As anyone else.

The least you could have done was to talk to me about it first if you had a problem with it.
Don't take it personal. I only brought you as an example to see if this kind of moderation is right.

[Prof.Wizard]

Hey CouchTest, no worries. I DON'T want your job, this is the last time I repeat it.

But just to comment on what you said?
You don't want me in the admin team. YOU? Jeez, I hope your personal self-esteem is higher than your e-one cause as a future doctor I'm in position to say you run some serious psychological issues dude.

This isn't a game about power and authority which YOU crave and don't want to share with no one. I screw you and your frontpage-job man, work it alone. Better for me to yell on you if I ever don't see my submitted news posted on time.

As always, your zero-productivity commenting has taken the thread OT. Better don't respond in an ongoing coversation if you don't know how and what to say...

[Prof.Wizard]

Deciding who got a job was a matter of who volunteered or was elected, depending on the job. Coug volunteered to be frontpage-guy. Tannin was elected chairman.
So it was (partly) a matter of who-comes-first-takes-first...

Anyway, as a regular member I call the oh-mighty Admin Team to consider the addition of another frontpage-guy as well (Couch is not enough) and consider elections for moderators/admin positions every 6 months.

Fair enough?

[Prof.Wizard]

I'm not suggesting that every moderator has a perfect record. Shortly after I got mod power I corrected a misspelled word in one of my posts, for instance (just to see how the process worked).
OF COURSE this doesn't harm Mercutio. I would NEVER expect anyone complain about it. And this includes me.

It might be said that checking the giver's IP was wrong as well.
Yep. This was unfair IMHO. This is why no IPs should be visible for moderators as well.

----------------------------------
PS. If you're good in the command of English feel free to correct typos and/or grammatical errors to my posts too.

[flagreen]

Wrong Prof - This not when I changed what I originally wrote to Jake. If you had bothered to read and post my explanation to Jake about this you will see that my editing of my own words was being done as Jake was replying to them unbeknownst to me.
So... editing of your own words?
And why should you edit your own words? What's said is said. Create another post if you want to restate something. As anyone else.
As I said in my response to Jake, I did so to avoid needless conflict with, and offence to, Jake based on my misunderstanding of that which I was originally responding to. It was my intention to edit it befiore he or anyone else saw it. In effect to use the editing function in a similar manner as one ordinarily uses the preview function. Unfortunately as I was editing it Jake was already responding to it. Had I known that he was I would not have edited it becasue to do so would not have been proper and would be an abuse of power. Had I saved the original content of the post I would have reposted it, but I didn't. So the note I placed in the post as to what happened was the best I could do. Go back and check the times listed for both my edit and his post if you doubt that. Anyway anyone who reads Jakes post can get an idea as to what was removed from my original post.

I also edit my posts for spelling and grammatical errors that I miss when previewing my posts.



The least you could have done was to talk to me about it first if you had a problem with it.
Don't take it personal. I only brought you as an example to see if this kind of moderation is right.
You're posting Jake's accusation without my response to it was not proper or fair. And you bet your life I take such things personal and make no apologies for the fact that I do.

BTW - You are dangerously close in your responses to CougTek to being edited yourself. So calm down and cool off before you post please. Peace-out Dude!

[P5-133XL]

Professor,

You seem to have many complaints of how we are handling the operations here ar SF. Lets see if I can help you understand some stuff.

First Question, are we trying to hide stuff from the normal user: Answer, yes.

The stuff in the moderators forum is deliberately hidden from everyone (including the administrators), but the moderators. When a post is edited or removed and placed there it is because people are not supposed to be seeing that stuff. The only people that should be seeing those posts are those that need to. Further, the discussions there may involve topics that may affect people reputations and shouldn't be discussed publicly at all, especially untill proven.

The stuff in the Administation forum involve creating policies. There many viewpoints are discussed that if made public would reflect poorly upon the people expressing them. However, they need to be discussed so that those issues can be considered with the policy being discussed. We don't want to limit our discussions to only that which is acceptable, publicly.

You are not currently part of the administration and thereby you do not have any duties and responsibilities beyond those of any normal user. You therefore have little control and no access to information that is not appropiate to your level of duty. If and when you gain some more responsibilities and duties then you will be granted access to the information and tools needed to satisfy those. Untill then, I suggest that you be satisfied with the amount of control you have.

The point that I'm trying to make is that there is good reason to prevent you (and others) from accessing and having control over stuff you have no responsibility for.

Question : "I wanna know the procedures of getting that persons to the jobs."; answer, there is no current set procedure. When a job needs to be done, we have simply delt with the issue on a case by case basis.

Handruin got his task of webmaster, by creating the site. He did such a good job that there has never been any issue as to replacing him. Coug got the job as doing the frontpage by simply vollunteering and doing the job. He has do a fine job and no one is looking to replace him. Tannin was elected to the chairmanship by the admins. The moderators were elected by the Admins. The Admin group were created by ourselves.

If you are interested in one of the jobs, try proving yourself capable and responsible. Rather than taking someone elses job, you might find it easier to create your own. Start doing the work and become the defacto person in charge of it.

[Prof.Wizard]

As I said in my response to Jake, I did so to avoid needless conflict with, and offence to, Jake based on my misunderstanding of that which I was originally responding to. It was my intention to edit it befiore he or anyone else saw it. In effect to use the editing function in a similar manner as one ordinarily uses the preview function. Unfortunately as I was editing it Jake was already responding to it. Had I known that he was I would not have edited it becasue to do so would not have been proper and would be an abuse of power. Had I saved the original content of the post I would have reposted it, but I didn't. So the note I placed in the post as to what happened was the best I could do. Go back and check the times listed for both my edit and his post if you doubt that. Anyway anyone who reads Jakes post can get an idea as to what was removed from my original post.
I understood how it happened with Jake, you don't have to explain to me (again).

I also edit my posts for spelling and grammatical errors that I miss when previewing my posts.
Why should edit your post for typos/grammaticals and the rest of us not? This is darn unfair. Let them be as you originally posted them. Go check phpBB's FAQ for the jobs a moderator should do.

You're posting Jake's accusation without my response to it was not proper or fair. And you bet your life I take such things personal and make no apologies for the fact that I do.
Your response had absolutely no significance for the topic. The fact of the matter is that you used you mod powers to restate-rephrase something you had already written.



BTW - You are dangerously close in your responses to CougTek to being edited yourself. So calm down and cool off before you post please. Peace-out Dude!
IF YOU TOUCH ONE WORD OF MY POSTS BE SURE TO KNOW WHAT YOU'RE DOING. AND CONSIDER WHAT YOU'LL CUT FROM ME AND WHAT YOU'LL LEAVE TO COUCHTEST...

I'm not cooling off a single bit, dude, I'll defend myself to the best extent.

[Prof.Wizard]

First Question, are we trying to hide stuff from the normal user: Answer, yes.
Ah yeah? And why that? We're both coming from SR. We're both here to continue discussions that were supposed to be made at SR when SR would close. OF course, SF gots now its own character. But I didn't choose you to be in that admin team P5. And what do you have to hide from me regarding SF?



The stuff in the moderators forum is deliberately hidden from everyone (including the administrators), but the moderators. When a post is edited or removed and placed there it is because people are not supposed to be seeing that stuff. The only people that should be seeing those posts are those that need to. Further, the discussions there may involve topics that may affect people reputations and shouldn't be discussed publicly at all, especially untill proven.
So, is there a Jerry Springer show running behind the scenes? C'mon for Christ's sake, there are less than 120 registrated member in SF, most of them with multiple personas... do we really need this kind of "mysticism"?


The stuff in the Administation forum involve creating policies. There many viewpoints are discussed that if made public would reflect poorly upon the people expressing them. However, they need to be discussed so that those issues can be considered with the policy being discussed. We don't want to limit our discussions to only that which is acceptable, publicly.
idem


You are not currently part of the administration and thereby you do not have any duties and responsibilities beyond those of any normal user. You therefore have little control and no access to information that is not appropiate to your level of duty. If and when you gain some more responsibilities and duties then you will be granted access to the information and tools needed to satisfy those. Untill then, I suggest that you be satisfied with the amount of control you have.
No, I'm not satisfied as long as Mercutio can see IPs and as long as Flagreen corrects his own typos.



The point that I'm trying to make is that there is good reason to prevent you (and others) from accessing and having control over stuff you have no responsibility for.
Yeah right, I might turn crazy and from a regular member and start hacking your machines (knowing your IPs)...



Question : "I wanna know the procedures of getting that persons to the jobs."; answer, there is no current set procedure. When a job needs to be done, we have simply delt with the issue on a case by case basis.
Cool. So we can cut on formalities and admin/mod councils and stuff.



Handruin got his task of webmaster, by creating the site. He did such a good job that there has never been any issue as to replacing him.He surely did. But when I joined this forum I thought it was the continuity of SR's legacy among the regular members there. It was supposed to be peer-to-peer forum between pals (lemme check Mercutio's invitation again) but it seems to be a Byzantime power game with master CouchTest NOT wanting to share a so important job with no one, producing unnecessary lag.

Coug got the job as doing the frontpage by simply vollunteering and doing the job. He has do a fine job and no one is looking to replace him. Tannin was elected to the chairmanship by the admins. The moderators were elected by the Admins. The Admin group were created by ourselves.
Yes I know the functions.


If you are interested in one of the jobs, try proving yourself capable and responsible. Rather than taking someone elses job, you might find it easier to create your own. Start doing the work and become the defacto person in charge of it.
I DON'T WANT TO TAKE NOBODY'S JOB. I JUST DON'T WANT SECRETS BETWEEN MEMBERS OF A SOOOO SMALL FORUM. ESPECIALLY INITIAL MEMBERS AS I CONSIDER MYSELF.

[flagreen]

I'm not cooling off a single bit, dude, I'll defend myself to the best extent.

You are free to defend yourself. However you are not free do be disrespectful to others. Shouting at others is disrespectful. No one has shouted at you in this thread and there is no reason for you to do so. Consider this your last warning Prof.

[Tannin]

There seem to be two possibiliies here:

(a) The level of disrespect shown is beyond the pale and should not be allowed to appear on the pages of Storage Forum.

(b) The level of disrespect shown, while distasetful, is part of healthy robust debate and should be tolerated, if not encouraged.

(b) is clearly the correct answer, in my view.

If, however, the mods in their widom, believe that (a) is correct, then they are obliged to act without regard to members' position in the hierarchy here. In other words, if they mod the Prof, they are also morally obliged to mod Cougtek. However, seeing as Coug started the name-calling, the reverse does not necessarily apply.

Also, we should note that we appear to be heading into a situation where both of the mods are personally involved with a potential issue, which makes it impossible under the rules for either of them to act in this thread. In time, that possibility will no longer be possible (once there are more mods), but at present it is a real possibility. If it becomes necessary, I will seek the Admin Team's permission to appoint a special mod, one who is not personally involved.

But it won't happen, because we are all gentlemen here. Aren't we.

[P5-133XL]

Professor,

you did not listen. You (like all other users here) are not accountable, you have no duties, you are not responsible for anything, therfore you do not have access to the information that others that do have those characteristics. To give you access to information without accountability, responsibility and duty would be irresponsible on our part. Merc and Flagreen are accountable for their actions. If and when they do something inappropiate then actions will be taken. To some extent, it is a matter of trust and there are degrees of trust.

If we gave you access to information such as unproven charges leveled against someone or a very unpopular viewpoint expressed, then you would have power to do harm without any form of recourse on our part. We can not allow that and it has absolutely no bearing on the size of the institutuion. When you have the duties, responsibilities, and accountability then you will have access to the information needed and the tools needed to do that job: Not before.

As an example, you have publicly challanged our right to keep secrets. If we gave you access to information that should not be availiable publicly, would you not revel it? If you did reveled it, what could we do to get it back from the public and what consequences can be allied to you? should we trust you not to revel it? What have you personally done that would indicate that we could trust you not to reveal the sensitive information especially since you are on record that you don't believe that anything should be secret?

Gimmie a break, I'm not so stupid that I will tell secrets to those that have publicly announced that there should not be such things as secrets. You really believe I would trust you with a secret now? You are doing a very good job of preventing any trust coming your way. You'll have to so alot of work creating trust and producing acountability before I'll trust you with secrets.

[flagreen]

Let me caution my fellow Admins against saying anything which would undermine the authority of the Moderators here. Any concerns a fellow Admin might have with a Moderator should be taken to the Admin or Moderators forum. To do otherwise is undermine his authority which hinders his ability to effectively do his job.

[Tannin]

On the front page matter, it is my policy to identify an area of responsibility and appoint a member to take sole charge of that area. The front page is Cougtek's responsibility, and it would not be proper for me, or anyone else, to interfere with his running of it. If Coug wants help, it's up to him to chose who and how. The only appropriate way for me to intervene in a member's designated area of responsibility (be it Coug's front page, Mercutio's Conduct and Moderation Committee, or anything else) is when that responsibility is clearly not being discharged.

At present, that question does not even arise. What it comes down to, Prof, is that if you want to be involved on the front page, then you have to work out how to get along with Cougtek.

If you want to have an influence on policy-making around here, step one is to discuss matters in a reasonable and rational manner. (As you have done with me in this thread.) Name calling won't get you anywhere. People just stop paying any attention to you.

[Mercutio]

Prof, even if none of the rest of us are making sense, I think you need to go back and read everything P5 has said.

Tannin, I don't feel at this point so personally involved (AFAIK I'm not being personally attacked, here) that I don't think I could make a decision in moderation. I also don't think a line has been crossed, yet.

[Tannin]

I take your point, Flagreen. Note, however, that my post (if that was indeed the one you were referring to) actually increases the authority of the moderators: it shows that no matter what the circumstances may be, action will only be taken by an independant, unbiased judge. It shows, in other words, that the moderation policy is well-planned and working effectively.

In reality, I believe that our current mods are well-chosen enough not to need the added safety layer of the "no personal involvement rule". But there is rarely any harm in having belt and braces.

[CougTek]

Note, however, that my post (if that was indeed the one you were referring to) actually increases the authority of the moderators:
I disagree. You took position on the matter and made a judgement. However, you aren't a moderator. In the event that the two persons in charge of the moderation would see things in a different way that you do, they would have to either challenge your judgement (possibly creating a conflict) or bend off to not go against you (something they might not have done otherwise). By taking a position and somehow telling the mods what to do, you hinder their power in the current case.

This is what I'm refering to :

In other words, if they mod the Prof, they are also morally obliged to mod Cougtek. However, seeing as Coug started the name-calling, the reverse does not necessarily apply.
The above could be argued (I would, obviously), but it would be better if it wouldn't be discussed here. It should simply not have been written here IMO.

[Jake the Dog]

in regards to editing, if the average user isn't allowed to edit their own posts then i don't believe admin or mods shuold have the right to either. note that i said own posts, of course admin and mods need to be able to edit unsuitable post made by others.

[Clocker]

PW-
I can see you have several concerns. It is good that you express them but please do it with a bit more respect. Sure, others may have come across toward you with a tone that seems a but harsh, but, you aren't doing yourself any favors by your retaliation and making fun of other member's Nicks. (Don't even think about calling me Cocker!)

Also, I maintain that moderators *need* to see IPs and other info. to avoid major problems and abuses by potential idiots. Don't worry about your little games that you want to play with other forum members. Moderators are not to use otherwise unviewable information except for issues when it is absolutely required. If you're really worried about playing games with others or those on the moderation team, there's always SR...

With all due respect...if someone gives you what you consider a low-blow, don't drop to their level and retaliate. You'll look better and gain more respect by taking the high road rather than sinking to the low road..

C

[timwhit]

I don't come here for 36 hours and the whole place falls apart...

Prof & Coug - you should both cool off. I don't even think that there are any issues here that are so damn important that you guys need to get worked up about (That sentence is horrible, but I don't feel like fixing it). It's not like we are debating IDE vs. SCSI or anything here... :)

[Bartender]

I suppose that my initial questions and suggestions initiated this debate.

The authority placed on Moderators is great indeed. However, such control should be required in order to keep peace in this forum, or any other forum. The job of a Moderator boils down to mature and experienced judgment along with complete responsibility and accountability – hence, the position should be taken seriously, and given with great trust and confidence. It is true, that this forum does not see huge amounts of traffic or an overwhelming amount of users, nevertheless, the same type of roles need to be filled.

I believe that the policies in place along with the assigned roles of Moderators and Administrators, has been reasonable and acceptable to this point. As traffic increases, there is always the possibility of a more conservative approach, thus requiring more assistance in the prescribed roles.

Confidence and trust are required in any form of relationship where one party has authority over another. Those without authority should be convinced that their superiors will be able to keep secrets in confidence, and should trust them, that their personal powers of authority will not be abused. To gain this type of respect we personally must be able to prove this by example. Although Administrators discuss appointments, it is our own actions that recommend us for the job.

[Prof.Wizard]

Professor,

you did not listen. You (like all other users here) are not accountable, you have no duties, you are not responsible for anything, therfore you do not have access to the information that others that do have those characteristics. To give you access to information without accountability, responsibility and duty would be irresponsible on our part. Merc and Flagreen are accountable for their actions. If and when they do something inappropiate then actions will be taken. To some extent, it is a matter of trust and there are degrees of trust.

If we gave you access to information such as unproven charges leveled against someone or a very unpopular viewpoint expressed, then you would have power to do harm without any form of recourse on our part. We can not allow that and it has absolutely no bearing on the size of the institutuion. When you have the duties, responsibilities, and accountability then you will have access to the information needed and the tools needed to do that job: Not before.

As an example, you have publicly challanged our right to keep secrets. If we gave you access to information that should not be availiable publicly, would you not revel it? If you did reveled it, what could we do to get it back from the public and what consequences can be allied to you? should we trust you not to revel it? What have you personally done that would indicate that we could trust you not to reveal the sensitive information especially since you are on record that you don't believe that anything should be secret?

Gimmie a break, I'm not so stupid that I will tell secrets to those that have publicly announced that there should not be such things as secrets. You really believe I would trust you with a secret now? You are doing a very good job of preventing any trust coming your way. You'll have to so alot of work creating trust and producing acountability before I'll trust you with secrets.
You know it's funny cause although I trust you, P5, I never had the possibility to choose YOU. You say some things about trust and accountability and respect, but then again you seem to talk as I've been in these forums for a couple of days.

If you have serious evidence to counter/disqualify a post of mine, next time PLEASE DO IT. Till that day you don't have the right to accuse me of limited trustworthiness, nor to challenge my efforts and dedication to these forums, both in terms of post number and in S/N ratio and quality of posts.

CouchTest attacked me first on the UNSC thread. It's clear and you can see it with your own eyes. If he had been able to control his bad-ass attititude in that instance I would have never brought up his name in any post, nor lose time responding to a personal level. Apart this, I really believe we should find a second volunteer for the frontpage cause Coug can't cover the whole day spectrum.

--------------------------------

After reading all of your posts (especially the posts of members in the "Admin Team") I saw again how valid is the initial hypothesis: The "United Nations Security Council with its vetoing permanent-members." To state it with political terms: I wasn't expecting a change in the status-quo, especially by those who are already "in power". And this can be seen in almost anyone's response...

Last but not least, let me stress again that I find it totally unacceptable to have secrets in a forum of some 100 persons who almost all come from the same background, SR. Still you haven't persuaded me in what basis you stabilize the need-to-know-basis or "security level" of members around. I guess it has been a came-first-got-it-first procedure. Actually, I have no doubt about it.

But I think I know it's time to back off and stop appending this thread, for the best interest of everyone.
Thanks everyone for your input, especially those who tried to keep a neutral stance.

-----------------------

PS. BTW, regarding accountability. Don't you ever expect ME to accept Mercutio's/CougTek's whining regarding Microsoft Windows just for the sake of agreeing with them and becoming "more popular". I am what I am and I believe what I believe. I will continue agreeing and disagreeing with the issues as I qualify them...

[P5-133XL]

PW,

This trust issue is not related to the amount of time you have been here, where you came from, whether you were elected, appointed, volunteered, or anything like that. Fact - you do not have any form of responsibility here beyond that of a normal user. You have not accepted any, nor has any been thrust upon you. Therefore you are at the same level of trust as every other normal user. When that responsibility level increases then you will have duties and there will be acountability and the access level to information that you crave will increase. That is the way it works.

Trust is not something that grows out of time or exists untill destroyed via some poor act. Trust starts at zero and stays at zero untill it is proven via responsibility and actions that it should be higher. You are correct that I speak as if you are a new user of 3-4 days. Your trust level increases via responsibility not length of stay and your responsibilitys here are at the same level as someone who has only been here for 3-4 days. The real question is what actions have you taken to increase that trust level. What responsibilities have you accepted. I do note that while trust starts at zero and stays there until earned breaking that trust in words or deed can instantly destroy (or even produce negative trust levels) trust built up over years

You state that there should be no secrets in our organization. If you had access to secrets then you would, by keeping them, be breaking your own statement of beliefs. If you were to promise that you would not reveal anything regardless, which should we believe: your promise or your stated belief. How can we trust you not to revel that which should not be revealed, with a conflict like that? How can we ethicly force that conflict upon you. Before you will ever have access to privleged information, you will need to renounce that belief and then we, as the trustees of that information, would need to believe. That is going to take a signifigent amount of work on your part.

In actuallity, for me, you had built up some trust over the time I've known you. Unfortunately, with the belief you have expressed it has dropped signifigently too. In the end, I trust that you will act according to your own basic beliefs. I really would have voted in favor of you being part of the admin team. But how can I now, knowing this basic conflict with your beliefs? I actually like, and respect you. I care that you are here participating. I think you are good for us. I think you are pasionate and you care about SF and that is very important to an administrator. But can I trust you not to reveal confidential information that you would have access to as an administrator? I don't know anymore?

The only way that I know out of this pickle is to accept some form of responsibility and from there prove that you can protect confidenciality and thereby are trustworthy of others secrets. You won't get what you want by asking, craving, whining, even logic will fail. The only valid proof that I know is via actions because actions show much more about character than words. Unfortunately you repeatedly state that you are not currently interested in accepting responsibility, at this time: Too bad.

Please note that I seriously agonized over whether this post should be public or simply a PM, This is because I have gone beyond merely reciting policy and explanations of that policy into how I feel about you. In the end I decided upon a public posting because of your basic belief that there should not be secrets. I'm sorry if I am wrong. Feel free to correct me and tell me that I should have PM'ed you. I will listen and modify my actions in the future.

[James]

http://www.storageforum.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=177

... last line, in bold.

[Cliptin]

Good grief. I'm away for two days and ....

I am still wondering why all policies and procedures are not posted for common access. I have no problem with administrative activities happening behind the scenes, quite the contrary.

But, it is quite disconcerting to not know what rules those who are in power (I use the term loosely) are supposed to abide by. We are already well aware of what is expected of general members.

Accountability should be available from the general populace.

[flagreen]

So anyway, who has been nominated so far?

The Bartender (removed himself from consideration)

Jake the dog

time

Pradeep

Rocco (removed himself from consideration)

Prof.Wizard

Have I missed anyone? Or does anyone have someone to add?

[CNN Sport]

"Dave, do we have a winner?"

"No Ed, they are still messing about calling for nominations."

"Bloody bureaucrats. I don't know what the game is coming to these days. Would never have happened back when I was playing. You know, I think that if they used both hands, they couldn't even find their ar...."

"Ed! We are on air you know."

"Oh. Sorry Dave."

"Well, I guess that's the field then."

"No wait! We can nominate someone, can't we? We are season-ticket holders after all."

"I guess you are right, Ed. You had someone in mind?"

"Yes. I nominate Cliptin."

"Fair enough. In that case, I nominate Buck."

[flagreen]

Thanks CNN, an updated list then would include -

Jake the dog

time

pradeep

Prof.Wizard

Buck

Cliptin

Anymore? I'm out of there at the end of the month guys so speak up if you want to nominate anyone else. Time is short.

[Clocker]

I think the list looks good. Let's get on with it!

[Will Rickards WT]

The nomination list looks good.

My opinions on the administrative/policy issues:
(sorry for dragging the thread more off-topic... but I felt my opinion needed to be expressed... even if we aren't considering changes to the existing policies)

-- three moderators is plenty
until such time as the ratio of users/moderators becomes more than 500/1

-- moderators should be able to view IP addresses.
I'll just leave it to their discretion to use it only when necessary.

-- 12 month term
18 months seems too long and 6 months too short.
Shorter durations should be allowed to occur due to forseen or unforseen life situations which hinder ability to perform in good faith as a moderator.

-- Edits should be indicated in the public forum and post in question
I think this is a moot point since it appears that this is already policy

-- Locking threads is preferred over deletion of posts
And deletion is used very sparingly if necessary at all.

-- abuses are handled by other admin/moderators
I think there are already too many hands in the pot...
but what do I know? I've never tried to run a bbs/website.

-- private forums for moderators and admins are necessary

Policies are never perfect and should adapt to handle situations as they arise.

Will Rickards

[P5-133XL]

The nomination list looks good.

My opinions on the administrative/policy issues:
(sorry for dragging the thread more off-topic... but I felt my opinion needed to be expressed... even if we aren't considering changes to the existing policies)

-- three moderators is plenty
until such time as the ratio of users/moderators becomes more than 500/1

-- moderators should be able to view IP addresses.
I'll just leave it to their discretion to use it only when necessary.

-- 12 month term
18 months seems too long and 6 months too short.
Shorter durations should be allowed to occur due to forseen or unforseen life situations which hinder ability to perform in good faith as a moderator.

-- Edits should be indicated in the public forum and post in question
I think this is a moot point since it appears that this is already policy

-- Locking threads is preferred over deletion of posts
And deletion is used very sparingly if necessary at all.

-- abuses are handled by other admin/moderators
I think there are already too many hands in the pot...
but what do I know? I've never tried to run a bbs/website.

-- private forums for moderators and admins are necessary

Policies are never perfect and should adapt to handle situations as they arise.

Will Rickards

Mr Richards,

I don't believe that the Admins are considering rebuilding the moderation policies at this time. There was a signifigent effort to produce the current set of policies and while undoubtably not perfect, they were the best that could be done at the time. So far, what we have seems to work and we are much more likely to deal with such issues where there is a failing that needs to be corrected.

[P5-133XL]

Hey everyone,

The admin group is considering these choices and will choose someone by July 1st. With that in mind, could those nominated (or others) submit any information that may help us decide. I'm sure that it would also be good if those nominated actually accepted the nomination to show you are willing to serve and a little self promotion wouldn't hurt.

[Cliptin]

I accept the nomination and also volunteer to help get the FAQ out the door whether I am voted in or not.

[Buck]

I decline the nomination and recommend Cliptin.

[Jake the Dog]

Clipton = bribery I tell you!!! :P



Seriously, I too accept the nomination and thank those that nominated me.

Things for which I will stand for:
- Free speech above most things. An exception would b when one seriously offends another's strong ethical or religious beliefs.
- Respect and consideration for others and their opinions.
- Minimal moderation. I am of the opinion that it should only occur when absolutely necessary.

Self-promotion:
Well er, I’m not completely comfortable with this but I guess a can mention my experience in running other forums.

- I'm the admin of a moderately popular EzBoard which I run as part of my main website (www.GMH-Torana.com). it currently has 431 registered members and receives an average of 2403 page views per day. In 13 the months it has been going it received 344729 hits and 12629 posts and not once has anyone been a problem. The type of people that frequent that board are not the cerebral type we get here but they are the same in that just like 99% of the people in this forum, they are respectful and considerate of others. Except for the editing posts that inappropriately use of a new post icon set I’ve implemented recently, very little moderation has is necessary. I attribute this in part to the consideration, free speech and respectful attitude I try to foster in all, especially in the mods I’ve chosen.
- I was also a mod on a group of forums run by an Oz gaming league. This had over 500 members and 30,000 odd posts in the 12 months it was going. This forum group recently went down as the league has disbanded. At this stage it looks as if it won’t get back up and running, giving lots of time to spend here :). Many of the members on that forum were young guys full of "PC testosterone" so as you can imagine, a lot of crap got flung about and it required a fair amount of moderation. I suggested we create a forum that was a free for all and call it the “Boiler Room”. Only posts with illegal or immoral content were to be edited and/or removed by the lead mods (we were the more mature members). We implemented my suggestion and this ended up very working well as it kept the other forums free of rubbish. Eventually the Boiler Room calmed down and it became like the the fun pub-style forum as we have here. It was just a matter of giving people the space in which vent and work out their differences.

Not much else I fell comfortable adding. Most happy to help if you’re comfortable with me doing so. I think 12 months is a good term too.

Good luck to the other nominees too!

Cheers,

Tim

[P5-133XL]

The current term for a moderator is 18 months. We are adding one moderator every 3 months till we have our quota. If I remember correctly the quota is 5 moderators? Currently we have two elected and two appointed moderators and as the number of moderators increase to the quota the appoined ones will be relieved.

When the rules were created, there was extensive discussion on how long the term would be. It was felt at the time that moderation consistancy was the very important and thus the length of the term was extended beyond 12 months to 18.

Again, I don't believe that the admin group is currently considering a change in moderation policy. If there is a need, then obviously we will but the current procedures have been working so far. If people really believe that it must be revised then communicate what you want and why, to an administrator (perhaps in another thread in the feedback section).

Note, the Administrators are simultanously electing a new chaiman that will take office July 1st. When Tannin first took office he decided that his term of office would expire then. I think it would be appropiate to delay such reorganization changes untill after the new chairman is in place.

[Tannin]

Now that the nominations are all in, I just unstickied the thread*. One thing that we can be sure of: with a field of this quality, we will certainly get a good man.

(* Disclosure of personal bias: I hate stickies!)

[Santilli]

gs

[Clocker]

gs

wtf is that about?

[Tea]

Naaa. Just a storm in a teacup. But hey Greg - it's good to see you around. Haven't seen the famous "gs" at the bottom of a post for ages. We've missed you.

[Cliptin]

Naaa. Just a storm in a teacup. But hey Greg - it's good to see you around. Haven't seen the famous "gs" at the bottom of a post for ages. We've missed you.

Yeah. Since no one else posts in the subject line I've gotten out of practice of looking. Teaching summer school?

[Tea]

Weeeellll, it could stand for Goose Stuffing. Then again GS might be short for Great Sex. Or Gummy Shark. Or that wonderful old symbol of currency stability, the Gold Standard. Or Genuine Savings. Or possibly even Golden Showers. But my personal opinion is that GS stands for Greg Santilli. :)

Now if my theory is right, you'll find the topic of Greg's post up in the subject line. This is a peculiarity of Greg's posting style. He's been posting that way for ages and seems to like it. And indeed, seeing as he is a fully-fledged lawyer these days, it seems to me entirely fitting that the majority of his promouncements here appear in the fine print!

[Clocker]

Now if my theory is right, you'll find the topic of Greg's post up in the subject line. This is a peculiarity of Greg's posting style. He's been posting that way for ages and seems to like it. And indeed, seeing as he is a fully-fledged lawyer these days, it seems to me entirely fitting that the majority of his promouncements here appear in the fine print!


LOL. I never noticed! I gues I haven't been really reading his posts in a while. Sorry bout that G-MAN!

C

[Santilli]

And glad to be here.

Some of the more accurate forums I post in have a common message format. A long single line appears, making the message clear, and so you don't have to click and open the post.

That said, I've browsed a bit from work, a local high school, with a diverse population. Intresting experience.

Got on the bad side of a pro-football principal, because I wanted to open the gym at lunch, and after school, for basketball. I became a co-sponser of the Black Student Union, and we did it under that banner, otherwise, I would have had to open the gym to the entire population, not allowing myself to enjoy the fruits of playing the sport myself. In otherwords, I would have to function as a supervisor for the entire area, not playing, with the doors open, or limit the number of people by requiring a sign up, avaliable only once a week. This worked, since the serious players went through the process, and the ones that didn't care enough to go through the sign up, were not admitted.

The principal fought me every step of the way. Nice guy.
Glad he's retiring.

Do I want to continue teaching handicapped kids? Probably not. I found many used their "learning disabilities" as an excuse for rude, and outrageous behavior. As soon as I laid down the law, with only two exceptions, their behavior changed asap. And, to give myself a bit of credit, the two where not total failures, either. They tried, just not enough, and not often enough.

Problem is, I just don't see enough money in it to make it worthwhile. Also, at the end of the year, I had two kids that took all my time, thanks to discipline problems, and that resulted in neglecting the rest of the students. Not a situation I like.

By the way, I have not passed the bar, so I remain a Juris Doctor, without a state to practice in.


I've just been doing lots of stuff. 5 days a week, working at the school, lunch with the basketball team, and BSU, after school, when I can, working with the Bball team.
Working Thursday thru Sunday at a nice restaurant, and, picking up basketball referee jobs. Worked a camp at Saint Mary's for Varsity, and some JV boys. Excellent players, and fun.

End result is not much time for this sort of stuff, other then lurking, and, I haven't had much to say about computers, other then a few problems with a Dell Perc 2 card.

School was out the 14th, and since, I've been trying to catch up on cleaning, and normal stuff, ever since. Have to go finish cleaning the bathroom...

gs

[P5-133XL]

Cliptin has been officially elected by the administrators as SF's newest moderator. It was a squeeker of an election.

Congrats are in order

[Jake the Dog]

...It was a squeeker of an election.


/me wonders what that means ...

[P5-133XL]

...It was a squeeker of an election.


/me wonders what that means ...

It means he won by one vote.