rigorist

I'm going to give this thread one more clean up pass and then re-open it. Gimme about twenty minutes.

rigorist

We are open for business. But if the business is flaming and rule-breaking, this thread will soon be out of business.

Spherical Time

The original text of a post, and why we edited it, usually.

I sort of agree with this. There isn't any grace . . . because we don't autoban. Ever. Every single ban or suspension has to be discussed and approved by the administrators, and they don't have a set limit.

In that sense, a single warning is meaningless. We understand that sometimes people get upset over a topic or a comment, and we don't hold it against them. It's when people show a pattern of problems that we moderators ask administrators to take a look.

I'm not recommending anyone push the limits, but we have had members with more than fifty user notes. On the other hand, sometimes people only have the time to rack up two or three before they're banned.

The decision making process is hidden . . . but the decision is not. At CF, the decisions are not released, and all questions of staff actions are hidden. Which is certainly not the case here.

Spherical Time

Probably not, considering that we don't see them automatically along with a post. Usually, by the time we see their previous history, we've already decided to give them an infraction.

Instead of having to hunt through dozens of threads in the MCR, using the user notes means that the edited text of a post can be found user by user.

And we've already pointed out that we have to go in and look at them. It was about the same number of clicks to see user notes as infractions.

Spherical Time

You may have noticed, here at IIDB, users can't self edit. After two hours, posts become records of people's words.

Incidentally, where did "copious" come from? One of the things that we've had problems with is not enough record keeping, which would indicate that the ammount of user notes is not more than there should be.

Actually, I'm the servant of the users of IIDB, and the members of Internet Infidels.

That's dreck. Our entire existence is to encourage "good" posting behavior. However, we're not perfect. Sometimes, our carefully laid plans backfire. Sometimes, users get upset with us. We're just human, afterall. We give the best that we can (within the limits of real life).

When put like that, no, it doesn't. Granted, I don't think your comments reflect the reality of IIDB.

There is a general criteria for all of that, however, we've found it best to take every instance case by case. Everyone is different.

With staff review. Which, I might add, is the same at CF. If staff agreed, then they could ban me arbitrary. As Josephus was. Granted, if I wanted buzz banned, I'd have to convince my superiors, and one or two or even three minor edits does not make a compelling case for banning.

Thanks, but we're already better at mercy and grace than CF.

Spherical Time

On what specific subject? Appeals? Edits? I think that rigs was exaggerating a little bit. We do have general outlines for most of that.

What does that even mean? We can issue warnings "right out of the box"? Well, yes. We're moderators. We are trusted to use our discretion to do edits, but we're subject to review.

So can a democratic republic. Granted, we're autocratic.

But you're free to press us. At CF, that would be considered debating and against the rules. So would openly questioning a moderator action, and a moderator response.

He did? I must have missed that. There is one, and it's posted right at the top of the appeals forum. <link>

We're not as technically savy, I guess. We figure that users can find their own way to the QP&C forum if they want to make a complaint.

Besides, I'm very much against messing up the clean look of our forum with a giant orange button on every moderator's post.

I have. Granted, that was before there were such things as red and yellow cards, but you can be sure that it's still there.

I disagree. The moderators at CF seem to have little accountability. But that's better addressed in the main thread.

I know you've noticed the QP&C forum. You've posted there. So has buzz. I'm sure his appeal is common knowledge now.

The irony kills me.

Spherical Time

Agreed. Of course, that's true everywhere. The best way to avoid that is to avoid all message boards everywhere. That way, you'll never be able to build up a "history."

If this was CF, buzz's show and tell would be deleted. Here, the only rule is that you can't derail a thread with a complaint about something that happened in the thread. Take it to QP&C.

Agreed, license is not transparency. And no one here has claimed that it is.

Have you looked at the QP&C forum. We're clearly not bothered by embarassment. We allow people to post all sorts of nasty things about us in there.

Spherical Time

Oh please. Like the members of CF have the opportunity to discuss every edit and deletion? I've never had a moderator at CF discuss an edit or deletion with me.

The truth is, a moderator has to fix the things that he sees. If we gave every user a chance to review it before posting, nothing would ever get edited. Moderators here have discretion, but if someone complains, the other moderators, and then the other admins will look it over.

I'm probably to blame for that. Since we rarely have major problems with users here in ~E~, I don't always get strict with informing users of user notes. After all, minor issues are not really something that we're concerned about.

I'd call IIDB one. Since I'm in the subclass of CF, I disagree that it's exactly benevolent.

Here.


I think that you've proved nothing of the kind.

I'm sorry you feel that way. I'd suggest taking your complaints to somewhere that you're free to make them, except that you're already free to make your complaints.

Which is funny, since at CF you can't even link to us because we're a heathen website.