Are moderators and admins subject to higher standards?

[Khendraja'aro]

I'm opening this thread because, frankly, I'm not content with the way this forum is handled. I always thought that moderators and admins, due to the powers they yield, are subject to higher standards.

And yet here we have a prime example of one troll, namely Dreadnaught, who opens inflammatory, bigoted and trollish threads and then wonders why people jump down his throat.

Now, I want this out in the open: What role do mods and admins actually play here? Because I honestly don't believe in this "I can switch between roles"-argument.

[Hazir]

No, in a forum consisting of 19 or so people to even start this debate is ridiculous. If you want corporate moderation go to the atari forums.

[Khendraja'aro]

No, in a forum consisting of 19 or so people to even start this debate is ridiculous. If you want corporate moderation go to the atari forums.

Why do we need mod and admin status at all, then? The only one deserving of this title is Wraith who actually moderates.

[Ominous Gamer]

I'm not saying we should hold them to a higher standard, the problem is that the powers that be allow the same shit to go unchecked by regular users, its just more obvious when its done by someone you expect should know better.

[Dreadnaught]

Khend, I'll let this discussion go on for a bit for the sake of openness, but this is silly. Opening up a thread criticizing German (and then EU-wide) technology privacy laws isn't bigoted.

Calling legal criticism bigotry is an offense to actual bigotry. And your first post in the thread certainly was an offense to a rational discussion.

You moron.
you idiot.
you jerking off again
troll you are
you make such moronic statements
idiotic .

But seriously, not bigotry. Certainly not trolling. If your standard for "racism" is criticizing something, we shouldn't have a Debate and Discussion section at all. You may as well go to Atari, where discussion anything substantive and political is banned.

This forum requires a light touch with moderating. I think that's something we've all mostly agreed-on and something this place benefits from through the ebbs and flows of posting volume.

[Khendraja'aro]

Well, you were the ones to use the terms "luddite" and "lunacy" first, my dear. "Rational", my ass. So please look to yourself before you begin throwing stones. Honestly, I'm astounded that you don't even begin to acknowledge that maybe you were indeed trolling and that my response was merely the answer to your trolling.

"Light touch in moderating"? You are not fit to make those distinctions. Honestly, you are not able to do "light touch". You are a troll. Period.

This is the thread title: "More German Anti-Tech Lunacy". In which you proceed to call us "luddites", "bizarre" and "crazy". If you think that's "rational" then you're deluded beyond belief.

[Dreadnaught]

I do think the laws are lunatic and luddite. That's an opinion, a genuine opinion that I hold and I was willing to discuss extensively for several pages of posts.

In the past you've been very clear that you think moderators shouldn't express opinions about anything. You've suggested moderators should simply hover above everything quietly watching to dole out punishments when necessary. It's never made sense except for a community where moderators are paid staff and not part of the community.

This thread is just a continuation of your outrage over having moderators who also post. Unless you're willing to raise money to pay a stranger to moderate, this community will continue to have user moderators. And I cringe to imagine what that would actually be like.

[Ominous Gamer]

closing your own threads, even under the excuse of derailment is poor form. Could have just as easily removed the posts you felt where off topic (instead you laughed at them? ) and got back to replying to the meat of the discussion you kept ignoring or "point is"ing.

The thread just smacks of you losing control of how you wanted to dicuss only your end of the debate, especially with the way you laid in Illusions. Had to get your own bit in before shutting it all down. You needlessly and continously post baseless accusations and attacks against those that don't agree with your opinion, and remain silent when others do the same for you. Yet when someone posts something both true and relevent against you, you flip your shit and shut the whole thing down.

[Khendraja'aro]

I do think the laws are lunatic and luddite. That's an opinion, a genuine opinion that I hold and I was willing to discuss extensively for several pages of posts.

In the past you've been very clear that you think moderators shouldn't express opinions about anything. You've suggested moderators should simply hover above everything quietly watching to dole out punishments when necessary. It's never made sense except for a community where moderators are paid staff and not part of the community.

This thread is just a continuation of your outrage over having moderators who also post. Unless you're willing to raise money to pay a stranger to moderate, this community will continue to have user moderators. And I cringe to imagine what that would actually be like.

No, I think they should express their opinions non-trolling. I.e. not using words like "lunacy" right in the thread title. There's a difference between a rational expression of an opinion ("I think this position is problematic") and trolling ("This position is the absolute high-point in idiocy").

Do you actually believe that belittling a whole continent with smug superiority without even having the faintest inkling of why there even are such laws, the history and everything, do you actually think there won't be a strong counterreaction? This smug superiority is the exact same reason why your country now has that mess in the middle east. Yes, we have an automatic copyright to pictures of ourselves. I don't quite see where that's "luddite", considering your country has what essentially amounts to perpetual copyrights - talk about "lunacy"!

Besides the part where you state that I think that "moderators shouldn't express opinions about anything" is a bold-faced lie. First of all, I already made it clear that I'm fine with non-trolling contributions. Secondly, those attacks were not aimed at mods in general but at you specifically. Only now has my frustration risen enough that I'm calling the status of mods in general into question.

closing your own threads, even under the excuse of derailment is poor form. Could have just as easily removed the posts you felt where off topic and got back to replying to the meat of the discussion you kept ignoring or "point is"ing.

Did he now? Well, one additional example why he's no fit material. Especially the way he closed the thread.

I personally don't care if someone posts my IP address, I don't consider it personally identifiable. But, in principle, posting IP addresses and host names is highly inappropriate and guaranteed to make many people feel uncomfortable. This is something we never did at Atard and something we don't do here.

Hmmh, now why is it that "in principle" posting IP addresses is inappropriate? Could it have something to do with, say, a right to privacy? Hypocrisy, I smell you.

[Loki]

I'm opening this thread because, frankly, I'm not content with the way this forum is handled. I always thought that moderators and admins, due to the powers they yield, are subject to higher standards.

And yet here we have a prime example of one troll, namely Dreadnaught, who opens inflammatory, bigoted and trollish threads and then wonders why people jump down his throat.

Now, I want this out in the open: What role do mods and admins actually play here? Because I honestly don't believe in this "I can switch between roles"-argument.

Ever since Tear left, you were responsible for a vast majority of the flaming in this forum. Why are you so concerned with getting some back? It's not like you ever get punished for your constant flaming.

[Khendraja'aro]

Ever since Tear left, you were responsible for a vast majority of the flaming in this forum. Why are you so concerned with getting some back? It's not like you ever get punished for your constant flaming.

And you were responsible for the large part of the trolling. Don't act the innocent here.
And this "not being punished" is part of the problem. In fact, the moderation here is so "light touched" it might not even exist at all.

[Enoch the Red]

I'm opening this thread because, frankly, I'm not content with the way this forum is handled. I always thought that moderators and admins, due to the powers they yield, are subject to higher standards.

And yet here we have a prime example of one troll, namely Dreadnaught, who opens inflammatory, bigoted and trollish threads and then wonders why people jump down his throat.

Now, I want this out in the open: What role do mods and admins actually play here? Because I honestly don't believe in this "I can switch between roles"-argument.

I'm not sure I see a valid reason for this outrage other than the fact that you've got paper-thin skin for anything remotely critical of Germany.

[CitizenCain]

Well, I think the important lessons from this from this thread are:

1) Any criticism of anything related to Germany is bigoted trolling
2) Khen's allowed to flame to the rest of, but the the rest us are not allowed to disagree with him, as is always the case with princesses
3) After OG says something enough times, it becomes true
4) Mods and admins are now allowed to use their elevated access to everyone's information to score points in discussions.

I'd like to thank Khen for gracing us with her august magnificence, so that I might learn these lessons.

[Flixy]

I agree with enoch here, but I'd also like to add I'm not happy with mods closing their own threads like this (especially since hardly any threads are ever closed here).

[Steely Glint]

I'm not really happy about the thread being closed.

[Aimless]

Dread, please reopen the thread. Your criticism of Illusions is unfair and unwarranted. And it's not like he registered cain's name on facebook or linkedin and used that profile to make his more choice posts easy to find for potential employers and his mum

[Enoch the Red]

Dread, please reopen the thread. Your criticism of Illusions is unfair and unwarranted. And it's not like he registered cain's name on facebook or linkedin and used that profile to make his more choice posts easy to find for potential employers and his mum

I don't think it was unwarranted. I thought Illusions handled that situation rather poorly. It reeked of intimidation.

[CitizenCain]

Dread, please reopen the thread. Your criticism of Illusions is unfair and unwarranted. And it's not like he registered cain's name on facebook or linkedin and used that profile to make his more choice posts easy to find for potential employers and his mum

Pretty sure that the objection was Illusions' use of privileged information (IP logs) to reveal Dread's ISP, rather than the hypothetical he posed to me. It's impossible for this site to trace back to my "real" IP (which isn't even my real IP, but I digress), so I personally don't care much, but are you (or the rest of you) really saying you'd be comfortable with the mods and admins here using any "personal" or "private" information that can be gleaned from the server's logs, in publicly accessible debates? (It actually seems to me that you, and Khen, and OG who seem to support some form of right to privacy ought to be more disturbed by Illusions' behavior than Dread's, but aren't... why's that? )

So, yeah, Dread's definitely got a legit criticism of Illusions, for a number of reasons, none of which are really related to the question of the thread (at least as I see the thread's main thrust). I can't say that I think his closing the thread was an over-reaction, with containment being preferable to clean-up after the fact, but I will agree with everyone else's sentiment that the thread should not stay closed.

[Steely Glint]

Wait, Illusions is an admin?

[Aimless]

Unless Dread's ISP has about three customers, naming it is nothing more than a very effective way to make the issue come alive for Dread. Which is probably one reason why he reacted so strongly He may have considered Illusions's remark to be a lapse in judgement. As lapses go, I think it was a good one. A better one than hastily and publicly calling out a fellow mod over something like this. The poor taste angle is, how do you say, a red herring or a diversion.

While I recognise a right to privacy and personality, I'm not certain ISP name should be high up on the list of priorities. If it is, then I can accept eg. asking Illusions to edit it out. Dread's supposed to be far more lax about this privacy business than I am.

Honestly, the information we've posted publicly on these forums is probably more than enough to identify many of us. Illusions naming Dread's ISP isn't something I'd consider intimidating.

[CitizenCain]

Wait, Illusions is an admin?

Or that he had access to admin-level information at one point, at the least.

Hows your Road Runner internet service treating you? Do you like it? Would you recommend it to a friend? On a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the highest, how do you rank its speed?

I personally don't care if someone posts my IP address, I don't consider it personally identifiable. But, in principle, posting IP addresses and host names is highly inappropriate and guaranteed to make many people feel uncomfortable. This is something we never did at Atard and something we don't do here.

Everyone knows moderators and admins can check IP addresses. Actually posting that you're doing that kind of snooping is very low. It's not an appropriate way to discuss something or be an admin. EG, even when I could see where Gentry was really posting from over the years, I never posted her IP address or even hinted at it, despite be able to know when she was lying.

You're supposed to keep your capabilities as an admin far above any kind of day-today discussion or disagreement. You are absolutely not use them to make (or fail to make) a point in a discussion.

It is very disappointing to see you do this, we'll discuss this further in the mod/admin forum.

I'm open to other interpretations, but it seems pretty cut and dry that Illusions has admin access, unless you can come up with a more reasonable interpretation of that...

Honestly, the information we've posted publicly on these forums is probably more than enough to identify many of us. Illusions naming Dread's ISP isn't something I'd consider intimidating.

Well, sure, and I don't necessarily disagree (except when you say Dread is over-reacting, and why), but the information we all publicly share on this forum, we choose to publicly share, and know we're publicly sharing it. Thus is not the case with IP addies or even our ISP - such details are purposefully kept privileged, (you can attach the IP address each post was made from to the post itself, for all to see) and thus, the expectation here is that they won't be given out by those entrusted with that information.

Doing so, is, at the least, misuse of privileged information. Again, not that it bothers me, but the root issue is much more than narrowing Dread down to one of millions of New Yorkers, and I think Dread was correct to lock the thread, at least temporarily, to prevent any more data leakage, however unlikely that may be. Can't really regain trust once you've lost it, so I think erring on the side of caution is the proper course of action in this case.

[Aimless]

Yeah, speaking of low, Dread...

[Illusions]

I don't think it was unwarranted. I thought Illusions handled that situation rather poorly. It reeked of intimidation.

Well I wouldn't ever post his IP address. That and Dreadnaught has let us know that he lives in NYC numerous times, so discovering that a person living in NYC uses an internet service provider that serves NYC is like saying that he uses the 1 train (so do a few million other people).

So, yeah, Dread's definitely got a legit criticism of Illusions, for a number of reasons, none of which are really related to the question of the thread (at least as I see the thread's main thrust).

What would those reasons be, that aren't related to privacy?

I can't say that I think his closing the thread was an over-reaction, with containment being preferable to clean-up after the fact, but I will agree with everyone else's sentiment that the thread should not stay closed.

I'm uncertain of how containment would work in this instance as locking a thread doesn't stop admins or moderators from posting in it.

Wait, Illusions is an admin?

That would be correct. My primary function is CSS and image maintenance, banning bots when Dread, Rand, or Wraith aren't around, or filling in for Wraith when he isn't around.

[CitizenCain]

What would those reasons be, that aren't related to privacy?

Like I said, misuse of power/privledge, and the public perception, primarily.

I'm uncertain of how containment would work in this instance as locking a thread doesn't stop admins or moderators from posting in it.

Certainly throws up an impossible-to-miss warning, though, doesn't it? Removing your technical capability to post would only be necessary if you were a total asshole willing to go scorched-Earth over the issue.

[Enoch the Red]

Well I wouldn't ever post his IP address. That and Dreadnaught has let us know that he lives in NYC numerous times, so discovering that a person living in NYC uses an internet service provider that serves NYC is like saying that he uses the 1 train (so do a few million other people).

You're right. Next time I have a disagreement with someone, I'll ask them how they liked their ride on the 1 train, at 10:30 last night, if they thought the homeless guy sitting to their right was looking at them funny, and, oh-by-the-way why did you get off at the 238 Street station, don't you live at...

It's not that you would post anything personally identifiable about Dreadnaught, it's that you could. And it's not just that you could it's that you've shown a willingness to do so to score points in a debate, something I personally consider pretty bad form.

Dread's supposed to be far more lax about this privacy business than I am.

I think there's a huge difference to between what a company, or individual on a message board, is legally obligated to do, and what might be considered ethical. Being opposed to a legal obligation does not mean one is necessarily opposed to a moral or ethical obligation.

[Illusions]

Like I said, misuse of power/privledge, and the public perception, primarily.

Wasn't I arguing with you and Dread that Facebook is capable of misusing power and privilege? You know, by making previously private information public via changing their terms of service and the services they offer without informing the user beforehand?

Certainly throws up an impossible-to-miss warning, though, doesn't it?

I don't subscribe to threads, so the only reason I noticed it was locked was because I saw someone had posted something in Site Discussion, opened said subforum to see if it needed my attention, then read in this very thread that it had been locked.

Removing your technical capability to post would only be necessary if you were a total asshole willing to go scorched-Earth over the issue.

After reading it it seemed more like "I'm taking my ball and going home!" rather than damage control. Damage control would have been claiming he uses a different ISP, act like I was making a guess, then PM'ing me telling me to cool it. I have no such PM's, and like I said with the above, I didn't care enough to check the thread until someone mentioned it was locked, so I would've missed Dread's message, until maybe Sunday or so, had someone not posted about it here (mainly OG mentioning that he laid into me).

You're right. Next time I have a disagreement with someone, I'll ask them how they liked their ride on the 1 train, at 10:30 last night, if they thought the homeless guy sitting to their right was looking at them funny, and, oh-by-the-way why did you get off at the 238 Street station, don't you live at...

Enoch: Let me equate this pretty vague thing with something highly specific!
Illusions: Okay.

it's that you've shown a willingness to do so to score points in a debate

Points? I didn't post that to win or lose points with people. In my head what I thought I was doing was firmly demonstrating to Dreadnaught that he does care and does think its wrong that someone can share someone else's private information, in the hope that he would change his opinion.

[CitizenCain]

Wasn't I arguing with you and Dread that Facebook is capable of misusing power and privilege? You know, by making previously private information public via changing their terms of service and the services they offer without informing the user beforehand?

No.

I don't subscribe to threads, so the only reason I noticed it was locked was because I saw someone had posted something in Site Discussion, opened said subforum to see if it needed my attention, then read in this very thread that it had been locked.

But, had you intended to post more privileged information to make your point, you couldn't have missed the thread's locked status, and Dread's issues with your post.

After reading it it seemed more like "I'm taking my ball and going home!" rather than damage control. Damage control would have been claiming he uses a different ISP, act like I was making a guess, then PM'ing me telling me to cool it. I have no such PM's, and like I said with the above, I didn't care enough to check the thread until someone mentioned it was locked, so I would've missed Dread's message, until maybe Sunday or so, had someone not posted about it here (mainly OG mentioning that he laid into me).

Only if the issue was that Dread cares about his ISP being revealed, which he clearly doesn't. Again, the issue's about broader concerns about misusing power and/or community perception, not the contents of a specific factoid. Can you honestly not be seeing that?

[Enoch the Red]

Enoch: Let me equate this pretty vague thing with something highly specific!
Illusions: Okay.

You're saying you don't have access to more detailed information on Dreadnaught? Things like his email address, his IP address, etc...?

Points? I didn't post that to win or lose points with people. In my head what I thought I was doing was firmly demonstrating to Dreadnaught that he does care and does think its wrong that someone can share someone else's private information, in the hope that he would change his opinion.

The only way someone can value privacy is by requiring and advocating the force of law?

[Illusions]

You're saying you don't have access to more detailed information on Dreadnaught? Things like his email address, his IP address, etc...?

Email address? No idea. Haven't cared enough to check. IP isn't detailed, at least not for most ISP's that serve NY it isn't, unless you consider an area the size and population level of Manhattan to be detailed narrowing down of a person.

The only way someone can value privacy is by requiring and advocating the force of law?

Law? No, from the discussion it seemed he was alright with Facebook outting their users' private data, in general, as if it wasn't a big deal. Apparently it is a big deal now...

Again, the issue's about broader concerns about misusing power and/or community perception, not the contents of a specific factoid. Can you honestly not be seeing that?

I would like to hear more, from other people then. Dread, Enoch, and yourself aren't the whole of the community, nor unbiased when it comes to privacy.

[CitizenCain]

Law? No, from the discussion it seemed he was alright with Facebook outting their users' private data, in general, as if it wasn't a big deal. Apparently it is a big deal now...

Because shit like this causes people to terminate their voluntary associations. Like, by having their Facebook account deleted, or stopping their patronage of a discussion board, and so on. Now why might that be a big deal to one of the mods here? Clearly because he cares about everyone knowing his ISP, yeah.

I cna't tell if you're being incredibly disingenuous, or incredibly dense, but please stop.