Please Unban Josh whoever did it.

[GuyOnTilt]

[ QUOTE ]
All you ever do is whine.

[/ QUOTE ]
If even a couple other mods or several good posters want to agree with you and think "all I ever do is whine" and I don't contribute positively to 2+2, I'll not only give up my mod spot, you can ban me too.

GoT

[BottlesOf]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Dynasty, do you really honestly believe that banning Josh (temp or perm) is going to better 2+2 as a whole?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes or no please?

I'm only "hostile" toward a few people on these boards, but yes you have turned into one of them. Becoming a moderator seems to have put you on this power trip thing, imo. Why couldn't you delete Josh's post/thread and PM him telling him not to start threads like that again? He's a very, very, very valuable day to day contributor to the strat boards here and has done enough for those boards to deserve at least that. Is it really that hard to see why not choosing to instaban him (temp or not) was the best thing to do?

Re: your constant defense of T&C -

If it was the mods' job to instaban any poster who used any words or images which could be construed as "obscene, pornographic, or profane" we'd be banning maybe half of the daily-used accounts. Calling someone a douchebag is simply NOT A HUGE DEAL. People get called pussies, douchebags, etc all the time. It happens. Being in a position of authority/leadership is NOT about following the letter of the law; it's about trying to do what's in the group's best interest. Unless you're on a power trip, which imo you seem to be.

So which of these two scenarios would be better for the 2+2 community?

A) Josh's thread is deleted, he is warned via PM not to start threads solely to insult people again, and he is allowed to continue being arguably the most valuable overall poster in the strat forums.

B) Josh's account is insta-suspended with no warning.

GoT

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm curious: is there anyone besides Dynasty who would choose B here?

[Entity]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
All you ever do is whine.

[/ QUOTE ]
If even a couple other mods or several good posters want to agree with you and think "all I ever do is whine" and I don't contribute positively to 2+2, I'll not only give up my mod spot, you can ban me too.

GoT

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree 100%, but I suppose I'm just one of Josh's cronies as well.

Then again, I could give two shits less about the WPT or other forums, but I basically only ban spammer. I just lock/delete threads unless the infraction is so severe that I really think it warrants booting someone, albeit temporarily, from the forums.

Rob

[BottlesOf]

i liked the old spelling.

[Jim Kuhn]

[ QUOTE ]

Quote:
All you ever do is whine.


If even a couple other mods or several good posters want to agree with you and think "all I ever do is whine" and I don't contribute positively to 2+2, I'll not only give up my mod spot, you can ban me too.

GoT

[/ QUOTE ]

I would be in GoT's corner on this one! I also think warnings should be much more frequent than bannings. Do other mod's feel that warnings do not work?

I think common sense should be utilized rather than strictly following the t&c. Rules and laws need to be made for people that lack the ability to utilize common sense. I also think we should show favortism towards regular and valuable posters and ask ourselves if 2+2 would be a better place with the action we are about to take.

Thank you,

Jim Kuhn
Catfish4u
[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]

[durron597]

I prefer warning people before banning them too, unless it's really bad like blatant spam etc.

My $.02

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]

I think common sense should be utilized rather than strictly following the t&c. Rules and laws need to be made for people that lack the ability to utilize common sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, now this is something different.

I believe Jim is thinking along the right lines. Utilizing our own judgement is usually a much more effective means of moderation than coming up with strict rules for each forum. However, once these rules are created, they must apply to everyone. Essentially I am saying that the mods who create their own specific guidelines for their forums are actually limiting their own ability to make judgement calls.

If these standard 'policies' and 'rules' (apart from what is already spelled out in the site's T&C) were not created in the first place, all the moderators would have to use their own judgement on how to handle a situation.

If a rule would require that you sometimes ban or suspend a person, don't put it in your own guidelines.

Wouldn't that be better?

Also, think about how moderators would no longer be able to fall back on, "It's my policy, so it had to be done." No, any bans or suspensions they make will be about their own judgement of the situation. If that were the case, they could be held more directly accountable for these decisions.

Let's face it...
All situations and posters are not equal. So why should the moderators of these forums be creating rules which limit their own ability to make the right calls and use their own judgement? Isn't our supposed better than average judgement why we were made mods in the first place?

Once you make something a rule or policy, it must apply to everyone.

My solution: Don't make new rules. Use your judgement. If a decision isn't good, the only fault is that of the decision maker.

Simple.

[Surfbullet]

[ QUOTE ]

My solution: Don't make new rules. Use your judgement. If a decision isn't good, the only fault is that of the decision maker.

Simple.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree wholeheartedly, and this is how I understand my responsibility as a moderator. If I cannot come to a satisfactory conclusion I'll come here for assistance.

Surf

[AngryCola]

One clarification/correction:

Guidelines are fine when written well. New rules and policies are the problem here.

Mat is good at creating guidelines and the occasional rule, but you guys always write them in a much more specific and inflexible fashion. I think you should just drop all of that and let your judgement do the work.

[Greg J]

I think this was one of the best posts on modding this forum has had. I agree wholeheartedly with Cola again which frankly is starting to freak me out (j/k dude).

It's all about excercising judgment, and that often means case by case decisions. I honestly can't imagine banning someone without firing off a warning pm first, which I have done to a few ML posters. Often I get a responce that is less than jovial (I've even been called names). But I'm still slow to ban. (I remember responding to one smartass via pm telling him he could talk all the smack he wanted via pm, but if he didn't knock off his BS in the forum I would nuke his ass.)

I think being a good mod is akin to playing good poker -- you have to make good decisions. I think hard and fast "policies" are not a great way to mod. Warning pms are effective, and sometimes public chastizement of especially bad children tends to work, especially when you use your regular posters to your advantage. Yeah, using your contributing regulars effectively can help you be a good mod. I often say that Microlimits does a pretty good job of modding itself. I have a lot of good posters there that act in a civilized way, and if someone gets out of line that person has often been corrected before me or Wookie can even to get to them! And if we need to we just quote one of the repsected posters that put the offender in line and say something like "listen to XXXXX." The name in green can tend to offer some weight to the wise words of your best posters. I think your good, respected regular posters are one of the best modding resources you could ever ask for!