Secret Moderation

[___]

I agree with chip on this one. You gotta give people like chad a chance.

 

[PolloLoco]

I agree with chip on this one. You gotta give people like chad a chance.

In general I agree with Chip. But do you really think Chad hasn't had enough chances to be civil?!?

 

[bigtruck]

For all my vote is worth, which I'm aware is just slightly less than nothing, Chad does have a point. How much effort would it take to add a "this post was edited by so-and-so" to a message edited by a mod? When you remove parts of a post without saying anything was removed, you can change the posters overall message. A mod could make someone seem to say somehing they never really intended. Also, it would be nice to PM someone when you remove their post, or add a "off-topic/flaming posts removed by so-and-so" when several posts in a topic are removed.

From what I've seen, Chad doesn't exactly always have the most... ah... agreeable style of writing. But I've never seen him intentionally be an outright troll.

 

[sbock]

Even if he does have a point (which I can't see), how do you tolerant such multiple attacks on the mods here?

QUOTE
STOP HIDING YOU COWARD

 

[gaterooze]

From what I've seen, Chad doesn't exactly always have the most... ah... agreeable style of writing. But I've never seen him intentionally be an outright troll.

Actually, yeah, he has said some downright offensive things to people (including devs), and was warned by the mods. These posts were edited to remove the offensive content so you may not have seen it.

I would like to hear some of these examples of stealthily removed posts you're claiming, chad -- if a mod *has* overstepped the bounds, then maybe that's an issue. I'm just skeptical that is the case. For example, you whined that this very thread was "stealthily" moved to the off topic forum, and yet *you* were clearly in the wrong for starting it in the Pandora forum, and the mod did exactly the right thing.

 

[___]

I don't care what the hell he wrote in his posts that were edited. If someone offends people enough through bigotry or trolling or whatever annoying crap they should be banned, but chad has not crossed that line. I think people here who feel elite enough to do so like to mess with him a little and the kid has a very bad temper. Why always bait him and stuff and actually create more of these issues? Posts that have been edited or deleted have been credited by the mods who did it before. Why shouldn't this be a general condition? It would bring a nice improvement and if chad really is fucking up so badly we can see for or selves a little better or at least judge on what we think of the mod in terms of integrity. I can't even go back and get an overview about how much has been edited and deleted disregarding the content of the stuff. I would like to actually be able to review a little bit of the whole story so I can make an opinion for myself.

I was able to do that on a few occasions. Like on that thing with epicenter going all trolly or sam fisher... lately that nazi kid which concerned me more then the last two because I consider it serious. Or when there is stuff in the market place that seem fishy, spam or people trying to rip someone off.

 

[Esn]

Even if he does have a point (which I can't see), how do you tolerant such multiple attacks on the mods here?

QUOTE
STOP HIDING YOU COWARD

You don't. But even a blind squirrel finds a nut sometimes (not saying that Chad is a blind squirrel, it is just an expression).

I don't have a direct stake in this, but here are my 2 cents for what they're worth:

The mods generally do a good job in what they edit out. But it would be better if they let everyone know that they've edited something out, such as by adding a message at the end of the post in red text.

i.e. [Post edited for bad language. - MOD]

I think that you moderators are doing a good job, but surely some more transparency would not be a difficult thing to do, or a controversial one? Plus it would have the added benefit of letting other posters know that somebody was punished for a post. Kinda like having police officers patrol the streets; it reminds people that you're there.

EDIT: And also, if you edit chad's posts without letting people know about it, it makes chad come off in a better light. If more people were aware when you edit a post of his because he said something inappropriate, chad might have less support. So it's a win-win, no?

 

[senquack]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=oAXNfwPAOKw



Ahahahahhahaaaaaa

 

[Chip]

Having been made aware of the general nature of Chad's deleted posts (if not the specific language used), I think it is even more important that they should not have been completely deleted. Apparently Chad wished to voice his extreme displeasure at the idea of me being promoted to Guru or Mod status. That's exactly the sort of thing that should be open to public comment.

The mods have a difficult time keeping things civil around here, and they do a much better job than most gaming-oriented boards. I have no doubt that whoever removed the posts did so with the best intentions. I'll also stand behind his temporary ban for excessive profanity and childish behavior. However, when it comes to discussion of whether somebody should be allowed to mod the forums, that's an opinion that should be heard. Remove the profanity if necessary. Disemvowel the post if you think he's being a twit. Replace his whole rant with "-1 (edited by mod for content)". But please don't disappear the post as if there is no dissent.

 

[Tobriand]

Having been made aware of the general nature of Chad's deleted posts (if not the specific language used), I think it is even more important that they should not have been completely deleted. Apparently Chad wished to voice his extreme displeasure at the idea of me being promoted to Guru or Mod status. That's exactly the sort of thing that should be open to public comment.

Agreed, actually. The second post largely reinstated, and edited slightly to remove the reason for their being disappeared in the first place. Not, I hasten to add, by me.

 

[___]

I like the way the discussion is moving. Lately board activity has been somewhat wild as we have a lot new members and a lot of tension. People are fast to jump at people they deem trolls as we have experienced a lot of idiots posting recently. I am glad that there is a lot of sane people on here, mods and members, who are able to discuss a sensitive issue like this openly and maturely without starting yet another flamewar.

Now how is this going to be worked out then? Is it possible for mods to tag edited posts and threads in the future?

Best thing would be a censorship feature that enables mods to sort of "blank out" parts of a post (while leaving a note edited by whom and when at the end) instead of changing it. It would not show in the post but still be in the database for future reference, available to the mod-team. Threads should probably be locked first and then given a sort of scripted countdown before they are automatically deleted if not manually untagged.

EDIT: This would also give the responsible mod a chance to prove they did the right thing in case the poster complains. Untag an amended post and the hole text is shown unabridged.

 

[Sphinxter]

For all my vote is worth, which I'm aware is just slightly less than nothing, Chad does have a point. How much effort would it take to add a "this post was edited by so-and-so" to a message edited by a mod? When you remove parts of a post without saying anything was removed, you can change the posters overall message. A mod could make someone seem to say somehing they never really intended. Also, it would be nice to PM someone when you remove their post, or add a "off-topic/flaming posts removed by so-and-so" when several posts in a topic are removed.

From what I've seen, Chad doesn't exactly always have the most... ah... agreeable style of writing. But I've never seen him intentionally be an outright troll.

Barely a month would not be sufficient data.

ed. Sorry, month and two thirds.

 

[bboyneko]

 

[___]

@Chad: By changing your signature and your avatar you are just worsening your case. Just so you know I am not siding with you man, you are behaving like an ill-tempered 12 year old. If you stopped acting like this, your posts would not be edited at all and you wouldn't be ridiculed.

Still think we should make moderation of the boards more translucent. Sorta.

 

[Sphinxter]

Would have thought his photoshop would be better the way he puts down gimp.

 

[quartercast]

+1 for secret moderation. Mod, only you can stop the Chad's quest for interlets denominations.

Also, please secretly move this thread Misleading, disrespectful sticky to the LOL! Files. Thank you. :lol:

 

[Esn]

+1 for secret moderation.

What is its advantage compared to non-secret moderation?

QUOTE
Also, please secretly move this thread Misleading, disrespectful sticky to the LOL! Files. Thank you. :lol:

I actually think Chad made the right call on that one, as do most people here, if the comments within the thread are any judge.

 

[sbock]

@Chad: By changing your signature and your avatar you are just worsening your case. Just so you know I am not siding with you man, you are behaving like an ill-tempered 12 year old. If you stopped acting like this, your posts would not be edited at all and you wouldn't be ridiculed.

Exactly that's the problem here. It's the way he behave and insults mods and other members in this forum.
Just as I said before even if he does have a point it's the completly wrong way of showing it to the others.
Is it to difficult to open a polite thread and try to discuss the way of moderation based on facts?

Now his martyrdom is really childish and hard to sustain. And it won't change anything...

 

[Unfathomable Depths]

I think hes a genius comedian playing a part.

Heres the evidence:
1 - his cafepress Pandora gear shop. Trying to make money from something he has no actual part of. Comedic bronze.
2 - his sig with reviews of his past posts. Comedic silver.
3 - THIS. Comedic gold.

I hope he's not banned. I'll miss him.

 

[Squidge]

Exactly that's the problem here. It's the way he behave and insults mods and other members in this forum.
Just as I said before even if he does have a point it's the completly wrong way of showing it to the others.
Is it to difficult to open a polite thread and try to discuss the way of moderation based on facts?

I think it is for him. He's seemed mad and needed to express himself to everyone. He also did have something else in his signature at one point, then I removed it and PM'd him about the change (as it was untruthful). He eventually accepted the change, and then added the "and they can even edit your signature.".