* * * JREF Forum Thread * * * -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Thread : FM Suspensions Started at 31st May 2010 11:30 AM by Wolfman Visit at http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=176873 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 1] Author : Wolfman Date : 31st May 2010 11:30 AM Thread Title : FM Suspensions I expressed concern about this before. We were told that it was being 'discussed'. But now UncaYimmy has apparently been suspended from FM (for "gaming the system"), and again there is the exact same lack of communication and transparency. My concerns are two-fold. First, the fact that members can be suspended from FM with no public notice whatsoever. Unlike other suspensions, this gives at least the appearance of seeking to simply shut up people the mods/admins don't like. I can see no reason whatsoever why a mod/admin can't take 2 minutes to create a short notice that so-and-so has been suspended from FM. Secondly, the whole "gaming the system" thing. If ever there was a vague rule, this has got to be it. It just opens FM up to the potential for all sorts of abuse -- a mod/admin is getting angry with a particular member, so they suspend them from FM for "gaming the system". With no real definition of what "gaming the system" is, they can use it to cover a wide multitude of 'sins'. I'm not a big fan of UncaYimmy; he and I have had very different opinions on forum moderation in some cases, and I do think that he's something of a troll at times. In fact, his suspension from FM may even have been warranted. So this isn't something I'm saying simply because I disagree with UY being suspended. But quite frankly, after a brief flurry of responses, and one important revision to the rules, it really does seem like the forum leadership has essentially decided to do nothing else. We were told that all of our concerns were being carefully and seriously considered...yet in actual practice, little or nothing has been done. I can hear the conversation now. "Let's throw them an olive branch in the form of one rule revision; then sit back and do nothing else. They'll eventually get used to it all, the fuss will die out, and we won't have to do anything". Not in those exact words -- but I'm pretty darn sure that this is the general logic behind it. It is an absolute fact that members of the mod team makes mistakes. It is an absolute fact that members of the mod team sometimes act out of personal anger, rather than a pragmatic use of the rules. And as such, it is beholden upon the mod team that there be as much communication and transparency as possible, so that when such things happen (and we're all human...no matter how many or what kind of rules we have, mistakes will happen), it can be spotted and dealt with easily. It would take little or no time to institute a policy that when members are suspended from FM, a notice to that effect is given publicly. We do it for all other suspensions; why not for this one? Jeff Wagg said that communication was something they were taking very seriously: I'm monitoring this thread, just FYI. Communication definitely needs to be improved, and I'm going to see that that happens.Yet, almost three weeks after he made that post, I haven't seen one single announcement about how this is going to be done; and we still have members being suspended with no public notice whatsoever. I challenge Darat, Lisa, or any other member of the mod team to give a valid, justifiable reason why there shouldn't be public notices of suspension from FM. And to give us a clear, non-arbitrary definition of exactly what constitutes "gaming the system". -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 2] Author : Captain Tripps Date : 31st May 2010 11:52 AM Forgive me for being naive, but what does gaming the system mean? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 3] Author : Wolfman Date : 31st May 2010 12:05 PM Forgive me for being naive, but what does gaming the system mean? That's the problem...nobody really knows. No solid definition has ever been given. Very loosely, it appears to mean "trying to find loopholes in the rules to engage in behavior that is not allowed"...but in practice, I have yet to see any concrete definition. FM has had problems in the past with trolls who would keep raising the same questions over and over and over again, refusing to accept (or simply ignoring) answers that had been given; and otherwise engaging in behavior that was quite detrimental to the forum. They'd point out that "there is no specific rule against this" or "this isn't technically breaking rule such-and-such", etc. I have no problem with preventing such trolling activity, in principle. However, the new "gaming the system" rule seems to me to be replacing loopholes for members with loopholes for the mod team. Is there someone in FM that's doing something that pisses you off? Then say that they're "gaming the system", and suspend them. No public notice that they've been suspended (and if they try to say anything about it publicly in another forum, that technically breaks the rules for discussing moderation issues outside of FM!); no reason for the suspension given. I said this before, but I think it bears repeating. When trolls engage in their typical behavior in other forums, one of the oft-repeated words of advice from the mod team is, simply, "Don't respond to them". There is neither need nor responsibility to reply to a troll. This same common-sense advice should apply to the mod team. But instead of simply ignoring such trolls -- which they could easily do -- they instead have to invent this "gaming the system" rule. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 4] Author : rjh01 Date : 31st May 2010 03:46 PM This is not an answer to the question, but a minor expansion of the question. See this post by Darat In effect the idea of "gaming the system" has never been allowed, it's just that we've never explicitly mentioned it before. As the MA states "The Membership Agreement is not meant be totally encompassing of all allowed and not allowed behaviour or content, it is a short as possible guide as to what you can and cannot do here that most reasonable people will have no major problems understanding." Plus we now have the lesser moderation action of suspending Members from just this section, previously such behaviour resulted in Members being suspended from the entire Forum so we explicitly mentioned it - and as mentioned in the feedback thread we will look to make changes to the guidelines to reflect the feedback we've been receiving so it may be that it will be explicitly mentioned in the guidelines. Thread Where is the rule on "gaming the system"? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=173987) In short something needs to go in the FM guidelines (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=173145). In defence of Darat, he has been unavailable for most of time in the last month. Search for his posts to see what I mean. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 5] Author : Wolfman Date : 31st May 2010 05:24 PM Thanks for that, rjh01. Still leaves open the question of what exactly "gaming the system" is, and of why there are no public notices of FM suspensions (and I know, it wasn't your intent to answer the questions, simply to provide more background info...greatly appreciated!). -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 6] Author : Locknar Date : 2nd June 2010 12:20 AM Keeping in mind that at times "diplomacy" is not my middle name... :) It is an absolute fact that members of the mod team makes mistakes. Agreed. It is an absolute fact that members of the mod team sometimes act out of personal anger, rather than a pragmatic use of the rules.I disagree and suggest this is a assumption not fact. I will not/can not speak for other members on the Mod Team, but I have mentioned before I do not take things on the Forum personally (regardless of how they are intended); why would I (which is really more of a tangential discussion)? And as such, it is beholden upon the mod team that there be as much communication and transparency as possible, so that when such things happen (and we're all human...no matter how many or what kind of rules we have, mistakes will happen), it can be spotted and dealt with easily. I challenge Darat, Lisa, or any other member of the mod team to give a valid, justifiable reason why there shouldn't be public notices of suspension from FM. And to give us a clear, non-arbitrary definition of exactly what constitutes "gaming the system".Fair enough. With regard to public notices, as suggested by another member of the Mod Team the criteria should be more along the lines of "that which is publicly available on the Forum"; be it suspension from FM to most other "Administrative Suspensions" (such as for account inconsistencies). Note, this is not "policy" as of yet but rather something under discussion. As to "gaming the system", as rjh01 has pointed out Darat has already addressed this to some extent back in April though perhaps not to the level of detail you (et al) were expecting. Keeping in mind the open ended nature of the MA (which has been the case since I joined), the Mod Team is discussing a more definitive (or "non-arbitrary definition") to address the Feedback/comments posted in FM. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 7] Author : jsfisher Date : 2nd June 2010 02:07 AM I see UY's suspension from Forum Management has been announced. I have a modest suggestion, though. How about a label like "FM Suspension Notice" instead of just "Suspension Notice" for the post title? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 8] Author : Tricky Date : 2nd June 2010 02:14 AM I see UY's suspension from Forum Management has been announced. I have a modest suggestion, though. How about a label like "FM Suspension Notice" instead of just "Suspension Notice" for the post title? I don't know what the ruling will be on this, but I can tell you that the "labels" are from a pull-down table, so adding lots of labels gets unweildy. Since the message clearly says "suspended from the general Forum Management" I'm not sure if it will justify adding another label. I'm really hoping that this won't be a common occurrance. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 9] Author : jsfisher Date : 2nd June 2010 05:58 AM I don't know what the ruling will be on this, but I can tell you that the "labels" are from a pull-down table, so adding lots of labels gets unweildy. Since the message clearly says "suspended from the general Forum Management" I'm not sure if it will justify adding another label. I'm really hoping that this won't be a common occurrance. Given that suspensions from specific forums have been used for Politics as well (and I see Thunder is pushing for CT), I'd like to amend my suggestion to something more generic, maybe "Area Suspension Notice". That said, I'll respond to one of your points, Tricky. Yes, the message body does give more detail, but the message title still sets the initial tone. When I saw the notice for UY, I admit I had all sorts of unflattering visions of a poster in a death dive spiraling out of control. That is not really fair to UY. Then there are all those folks that like to tally banning and suspension statistics. The work becomes that much harder...Won't anyone thing of the children? :D -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 10] Author : Piscivore Date : 2nd June 2010 08:30 AM That's the problem...nobody really knows. No solid definition has ever been given. Very loosely, it appears to mean "trying to find loopholes in the rules to engage in behavior that is not allowed"...but in practice, I have yet to see any concrete definition. "Trolling the mods". Now we just need to define "trolling". -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 11] Author : recursive prophet Date : 11th June 2010 11:50 AM Haven't checked out this forum in a while, and it sure looks like most others have either given up on FM or have been, like unca, suspended from the forum and we just don't know about it. :D Seeing a thread like this, started by Wolfman no less, die after less than a page did make me wonder for a moment. But on second thought I figured it was simply the success of the revamp in squelching meaningful criticism. Works for me. I said for quite a while all suggestions wrt policy were a waste of time. If they had come up with the forum suspension idea back in '08, I wouldn't have even half as many infractions. :cool: -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 12] Author : Locknar Date : 11th June 2010 10:23 PM Works for me. I said for quite a while all suggestions wrt policy were a waste of time.This is demonstrably untrue; examples of changes that have been made based on feedback/suggestions include: - FM Suspensions are now posted in PN: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=177004 - Posts in FM are no longer sumarily deleted: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=177004 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 13] Author : Piscivore Date : 12th June 2010 04:56 AM Haven't checked out this forum in a while, and it sure looks like most others have either given up on FM or have been, like unca, suspended from the forum and we just don't know about it. :D Seeing a thread like this, started by Wolfman no less, die after less than a page did make me wonder for a moment. But on second thought I figured it was simply the success of the revamp in squelching meaningful criticism. Key word there "meaningful". When one sticks to a single issue when offering criticism, instead of shotgunning whatever negative thing one can think to say, changes actually happen. Works for me. I said for quite a while all suggestions wrt policy were a waste of time. If they had come up with the forum suspension idea back in '08, I wouldn't have even half as many infractions. :cool: So wait- it's the mod team's fault you've broken so many rules in FM because they didn't suspend you before you did? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 14] Author : Foolmewunz Date : 13th June 2010 11:02 AM I believe many of us are just watching the old clock on the wall. Two months is up in a couple of days. I, for one, want to see what, if anything, is done to incorporate some of the feedback and suggestions. I like the mods and admins, generally, so I figured as we got to three weeks, then two weeks, then days from the two-month mark, I could wait it out and give them the break they seem to need. Nothing's changed that much in my criticisms. I'm just keeping my powder dry and not starting a ruckus until a ruckus needs to be started. (Then I go down to Ruckus R Us and get some Ruckus Starting Kits....) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 15] Author : recursive prophet Date : 13th June 2010 12:49 PM Key word there "meaningful". When one sticks to a single issue when offering criticism, instead of shotgunning whatever negative thing one can think to say, changes actually happen. So wait- it's the mod team's fault you've broken so many rules in FM because they didn't suspend you before you did? I didn't really shot-gun Pisc. I was pretty focussed on R-11 and nearly all my infractions were for violating this rule. In fact I was often criticized for 'sticking to a single issue.' As to blaming the mods for my infractions because they didn't come up with the FM suspension idea sooner, are you serious? :boggled: :rolleyes: @Locnar: Yeah, there have been a few suggestions implemented that got a lot of traction and support from some of the 'cool kids,' or would have been hard to rationally ignore, like identifying those suspended from FM. But I could argue-if I had the time and still cared-that the list of actual changes is ridiculously small compared to all the compelling suggestions submitted. :boxedin: -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 16] Author : Piscivore Date : 13th June 2010 08:11 PM I didn't really shot-gun Pisc. I didn't say you did. I was pointing out that the term you used, "meaningful criticism", was key in understanding some of the recent FM troubles. There has been a lot of "unmeaningful" criticism over the years spewed in FM and the forum at large, leading us to the unteneble situation we have now. Contrariwise, when the criticism has been meaningful, changes have been made. I've witnessed and even been a small part of some of them. I was pretty focussed on R-11 and nearly all my infractions were for violating this rule. In fact I was often criticized for 'sticking to a single issue.' If you'd stop focusing on yourself for just a minute you might have noticed I was agreeing with your statement. As to blaming the mods for my infractions because they didn't come up with the FM suspension idea sooner, are you serious? :boggled: :rolleyes: I'm asking. What else did you mean by "If they had come up with the forum suspension idea back in '08, I wouldn't have even half as many infractions." @Locnar: Yeah, there have been a few suggestions implemented that got a lot of traction and support from some of the 'cool kids,' It's got a lot less to do with "cool kids" that it does "cool heads". But I could argue-if I had the time and still cared-that the list of actual changes is ridiculously small compared to all the compelling suggestions submitted. :boxedin: One could argue any damn thing one had a mind to. That's not a test for the truth of those postitions. That number of changes made vs. the "compellingness" of the suggestions answered is just your perception. Most all the issues I've taken a stand on have been resolved to my satisfaction, if not always completely. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Downloaded from JREF Forum (http://forums.randi.org) at 13th June 2010 11:09 PM.