Peanut Gallery Commentary on the Staff Log of Bannings and such like.

[Jackalope]

Hey mods, if you really, really want to show us, why don't you shut the site down for a week?

Double dog dare ya!

Why don't you stop stirring the shit, John?  Frankly, this kind of shit is part of the problem.  How about being part of the solution for a change?

[John V]

We've gone out of our way to remove as much bias from the process as is possible.  Got a suggestion on how to make it better?  We'll hear it, and if it's good, we may implement it.  Just want to bitch about it?  Shove it.

I've been having some fun, but seriously - as long as you allow Minimalist to go on as usual, there's no way you can warn someone for insulting or flaming and credibly claim that you've removed as much bias as possible.

---

Why don't you stop stirring the shit, John?  Frankly, this kind of shit is part of the problem.  How about being part of the solution for a change?

See above, and note that I said as much a long time ago.

[Jackalope]

We've gone out of our way to remove as much bias from the process as is possible.  Got a suggestion on how to make it better?  We'll hear it, and if it's good, we may implement it.  Just want to bitch about it?  Shove it.

I've been having some fun, but seriously - as long as you allow Minimalist to go on as usual, there's no way you can warn someone for insulting or flaming and credibly claim that you've removed as much bias as possible.

---

You got an actual suggestion, John?  You should know how the system works.  If the votes aren't there, the votes aren't there.

Would it surprise you to learn that I actually agree that he gets out of line?

[Pyrrho]

You got an actual suggestion, ...?  You should know how the system works.  If the votes aren't there, the votes aren't there.

...

What is going on in this thread is puzzling to me.  How does the system work?  I am asking because I honestly don't know about it, and this thread is making me wonder what is going on.  Is there some page on this site that explains the system of moderation here, how it works?

[John V]

You got an actual suggestion, John?

 
I have two. Take your pick:

1. Enforce the rules on Minimalist.

2. Quit claiming that you've removed as much bias as possible from the system. Admit you're biased. It's your forum (as agents of the owner), you can do what you want. I'm just calling bullshit on the obvious favoritism. If you admit favoritism, there's no bullshit to call.

You should know how the system works.

Not really. Some of your brethren are in fact complaining that people make assumptions about what's going on when they don't really know.

If the votes aren't there, the votes aren't there.

If the votes are based on bias, then I'll call bias.

Would it surprise you to learn that I actually agree that he gets out of line?

No. It's blatantly obvious. All you have to do is search under his name and "drippy" and you'll get plenty of posts in which he just insults drich and adds nothing to the conversation at hand. You all know it happens, you just don't enforce it due to bias.

[Jackalope]

You got an actual suggestion, ...?  You should know how the system works.  If the votes aren't there, the votes aren't there.

...

What is going on in this thread is puzzling to me.  How does the system work?  I am asking because I honestly don't know about it, and this thread is making me wonder what is going on.

In a nutshell.

* Someone files a report.
* For significant issues that would warrant a warning, suspension, or ban, we discuss the issue (sometimes at length), and vote on what action to take (including no action).
* If sufficient quorum is reached, we act, otherwise the report is archived with no action taken.  The required quorum depends on the proposed action (it takes fewer votes to issue a verbal warning than an official one or a suspension).

[Mudhammam]

Sorry for throwing a little hissy fit yesterday, Stimbo and Becca. Come back to work. Forgive me?

[robvalue]

A lot of the time I hear people whining in public, but it seems they refuse to submit a report about it. Or the other extreme, they submit a ridiculous number at once. Either way, this is not using the system as it is meant to be.

[Jackalope]

You got an actual suggestion, John?

 
I have two. Take your pick:

1. Enforce the rules on Minimalist.

2. Quit claiming that you've removed as much bias as possible from the system. Admit you're biased. It's your forum (as agents of the owner), you can do what you want. I'm just calling bullshit on the obvious favoritism. If you admit favoritism, there's no bullshit to call.

You should know how the system works.

Not really. Some of your brethren are in fact complaining that people make assumptions about what's going on when they don't really know.

If the votes aren't there, the votes aren't there.

If the votes are based on bias, then I'll call bias.

Would it surprise you to learn that I actually agree that he gets out of line?

No. It's blatantly obvious. All you have to do is search under his name and "drippy" and you'll get plenty of posts in which he just insults drich and adds nothing to the conversation at hand. You all know it happens, you just don't enforce it due to bias.

John, are you privy to the warnings that have been issued?  Is it that we haven't banned him what's sticking in your craw?

You do also understand, don't you, that we act based on what's reported, not every fucking post that someone makes?   Haven you reported any of the issues in question recently?  (I happen to know that the answer is no.)  If you haven't reported it, how the fuck can you reasonably complain that we haven't done anything about it?  How would you even know?

We don't make public the results of reports, but I can tell you that he's been warned recently for that *exact behavior* and if it continues in the future, then it will be escalated.

Frankly, John, you've got little room to complain about posts we don't act on if you don't report them.

[John V]

John, are you privy to the warnings that have been issued?  Is it that we haven't banned him what's sticking in your craw?

You do also understand, don't you, that we act based on what's reported, not every fucking post that someone makes?   Haven you reported any of the issues in question recently?  (I happen to know that the answer is no.)  If you haven't reported it, how the fuck can you reasonably complain that we haven't done anything about it?  How would you even know?

Key word is "recently." I've reported in the past and been shot down, so as a rational person o don't report anymore. If you've done something about it, that's great. Keep it up. But since as you note I don't know what you do, I'm going to assume that the patterns I've seen over a couple of years are continuing unitl there's evidence otherwise.

We don't make public the results of reports, but I can tell you that he's been warned recently for that *exact behavior* and if it continues in the future, then it will be escalated.

Frankly, John, you've got little room to complain about posts we don't act on if you don't report them.

Again, I was told that in the past, I reported, and the votes weren't there, as you put it. I'm not going to bang my head against the wall with continued reports, particularly as you guys use that as a weapon, and then ban the person for reporting too many posts.