[Discussion] Self-Appointed Deputy Mods

[Zaia]

Annoying as he may be, that does not excuse the board members who allegedly rallied together to take it upon themselves to moderate the board by messaging him simultaneously with threats.

His claim.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Annoying as he may be, that does not excuse the board members who allegedly rallied together to take it upon themselves to moderate the board by messaging him simultaneously with threats. :evil:

His claim.

If those claims can be substantiated in any way, we can punish them, too. Justice, after all, is blind.

[Zaia]

Dear chitoryu12, Zaia, and others reading,

I meant no harassment. I noticed, that you were going in a bad way, and in fact, had Duchess on your tail. Now I don't like to see users with some potential get banned over what could be called "stupid shit" Now, we all decided to give a general advice PM at once, as the situation looks quite grim, with the Duchess going to vote for a title If it came as harassment Zaia, I apologize. I also did not mean to violate AR-1. Thank you for reading.

SDN Member.

RedLeader34

"We all decided to give a general advice PM at once, as the situation looks quite grim." Who the FUCK do the lot of you think you are to take that in your own hands? As you noted, the Senate was dealing with it. He has received numerous warning from myself alone, as well as from other mods.

Now that you've made it your business, you can expect a subsequent discussion to be made regarding you, your friends, and your incredibly stupid decision.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

"We all decided to give a general advice PM at once, as the situation looks quite grim." Who the FUCK do the lot of you think you are to take that in your own hands? As you noted, the Senate was dealing with it. He has received numerous warning from myself alone, as well as from other mods.

Now that you've made it your business, you can expect a subsequent discussion to be made regarding you, your friends, and your incredibly stupid decision.

I'd be happy to start a thread discussing them for this. I would think that a special custom title for all of them to share, "Wannabe Mod", would be in order, along with a loss of av and sig privileges for a few months.

[Zaia]

I think we will have to wait until an admin comes to split these posts for a new thread or something. There's more evidence to be presented:

I admit and take responsibility for my action, I can offer no excuse worth mentioning for this and I apologize for this and promise never to repeat such an incident. I accept whatever punishment the senate deems fit.

-

[LadyTevar]

I'd be happy to start a thread discussing them for this. I would think that a special custom title for all of them to share, "Wannabe Mod", would be in order, along with a loss of av and sig privileges for a few months.

I second the motion.

[Capsaicin]

Split from Chitterling's thread, here.

[Noble Ire]

I'd be happy to start a thread discussing them for this. I would think that a special custom title for all of them to share, "Wannabe Mod", would be in order, along with a loss of av and sig privileges for a few months.

A temporary loss of avatar and sig privileges may be warranted, but I dislike the idea of the custom title. Even if the infraction is deemed worthy of titling, there's something about "Wannabe Mod" that simply lacks the aura of implicit sanction that "Retarded Spambot" or WTPF have (I'm not suggesting either, just using them as examples).

[Ozymandias]

I say they do get a title, with avatar and sig removal. If they cannot be arsed to use the PM system, then really they get slapped on it. It is one thing to flame someone, it's another to think and elevate oneself above the rules themselves.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Does anyone have a better suggestion than "Wannabe Mod"?

We could make it "Shitface Vigilante" -- Anyone like that one? It's smooth and suitable.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Also, should we have a separate poll for each one, or just try them together? Trying multiple defendants together is normal procedure in the real judicial system, so I see no reason not to do it here, also, since they would be receiving identical punishments for identical crimes.

[phongn]

Also, should we have a separate poll for each one, or just try them together? Trying multiple defendants together is normal procedure in the real judicial system, so I see no reason not to do it here, also, since they would be receiving identical punishments for identical crimes.

Just try them all at the same time - pretty much the same offense.

[Dalton]

I move that we apply the Not A Moderator title (used before) on all of them at once for either a long period of time or permanently.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I move that we apply the Not A Moderator title (used before) on all of them at once for either a long period of time or permanently.

That's an excellent proposal, Rob.


And now I hereby formally move to start a collective titling poll for all five of the self-appointed mods, who if convicted will receive "Not A Moderator" as a permanent CT and will have their sig and av privileges suspended for six months.

Who will second the motion, I ask?

[phongn]

And now I hereby formally move to start a collective titling poll for all five of the self-appointed mods, who if convicted will receive "Not A Moderator" as a permanent CT and will have their sig and av privileges suspended for six months.

Who will second the motion, I ask?

Seconded.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

I say we ought to title them something simple, like "Nobody", which, along with the revocation of sig and av privileges reinforces the point being made quite nicely. If you want to get creative about it, add "Delusional" to "nobody".

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I say we ought to title them something simple, like "Nobody", which, along with the revocation of sig and av privileges reinforces the point being made quite nicely. If you want to get creative about it, add "Delusional" to "nobody".

Not A Moderator has precedent, however, and I believe implicit in making the title permanent is that they will never actually become mods unless they change in a big way over a long period of time, like "Creationismistheway" did.

I would also propose that all five individuals be added to the list of those eternally banned from joining the Senate, regardless of the outcome of the titling vote, because vigilante style mod-preempting like that is functionally the sort of offence very similar to going around pestering others for a chance to be in the Senate.

[Dalton]

I would also propose that all five individuals be added to the list of those eternally banned from joining the Senate, regardless of the outcome of the titling vote, because vigilante style mod-preempting like that is functionally the sort of offence very similar to going around pestering others for a chance to be in the Senate.

Seconded.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Excellent, then. Unless an objection is sustained against the current proposed punishment and format of the punishment vote, I do believe that a motion to close debate and proceed with a vote is in order, though I will not propose that motion yet myself to give time for any objections to be sustained, if they exist.

[Kuroneko]

I am against it. In almost all previous situations in which someone was punished, there was an extended pattern of disregard for the rules, usually combined with a completely unapologetic attitude, many times after being warned about it by the moderators. A warning (already done), perhaps with a requirement of a public apology to the harassed (which three of the of the offenders have given), would be adequate. Just airing one's dirty underwear out in public like this is punishment enough in some cases. I believe this is one of them.

[phongn]

I am against it. In almost all previous situations in which someone was punished, there was an extended pattern of disregard for the rules, usually combined with a completely unapologetic attitude, many times after being warned about it by the moderators. A warning (already done), perhaps with a requirement of a public apology to the harassed (which three of the of the offenders have given), would be adequate. Just airing one's dirty underwear out in public like this is punishment enough in some cases. I believe this is one of them.

What about in the case of Einhander, who has a history of backseat moderating?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I am against it. In almost all previous situations in which someone was punished, there was an extended pattern of disregard for the rules, usually combined with a completely unapologetic attitude, many times after being warned about it by the moderators. A warning (already done), perhaps with a requirement of a public apology to the harassed (which three of the of the offenders have given), would be adequate. Just airing one's dirty underwear out in public like this is punishment enough in some cases. I believe this is one of them.

I would say this situation is unique from more normal forms of offences, because it leads to the problem of vigilantism driving away members, which has happened before. For instance, the woman who ran the porn sight, whose name escapes me now, some years ago; I'm not sure if the incident with Mouseychan counts or not, either, and there's surely others. To prevent these kinds of nasty incidents from becoming common rather than exceptionally rare, and to preserve the authority of the board, they should be punished immediately and sternly, and I would even argue that the title being proposed is lenient, and scarcely as insulting as it could be. They certainly do not warrant ever being Senators regardless, and the loss of sig and av privileges is simply a temporary visual example of their effort to usurp the proper authority here.

[Noble Ire]

Discouraging vigilantism is an admirable goal, and indeed, one vital to maintaining order on this board. Nevertheless, I think that the punishments recommended here go too far. As Kuroneko points out, it is not in the character and history of this site to hand out permanent sanctions for single lapses in judgment. Several of the members accused of back-seat moderating have records clear of serious prior infractions and have months or years of constructive contributions to their names. Sanction them for this lapse with a temporary loss of privileges, if that must be done to discourage such behavior in the future, but do not forever impugn them for a single wrong.

[Kuroneko]

What about in the case of Einhander, who has a history of backseat moderating?

Well, then, perhaps him. I don't think I've ever even encountered the rest, except for rhoenix (whom I never saw misbehaving).

I would say this situation is unique from more normal forms of offences, because it leads to the problem of vigilantism driving away members, which has happened before. ... To prevent these kinds of nasty incidents from becoming common rather than exceptionally rare, and to preserve the authority of the board, they should be punished immediately and sternly, and I would even argue that the title being proposed is lenient, and scarcely as insulting as it could be.

That's a reasonable concern, although I don't perceive this particular case to be all that exceptional. Perhaps a CT for Einhander, which nominally the "level one" of punishments in the rules thread, might be appropriate, but otherwise the proposals in this thread seem to me overly excessive.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Discouraging vigilantism is an admirable goal, and indeed, one vital to maintaining order on this board. Nevertheless, I think that the punishments recommended here go too far. As Kuroneko points out, it is not in the character and history of this site to hand out permanent sanctions for single lapses in judgment. Several of the members accused of back-seat moderating have records clear of serious prior infractions and have months or years of constructive contributions to their names. Sanction them for this lapse with a temporary loss of privileges, if that must be done to discourage such behavior in the future, but do not forever impugn them for a single wrong.

Since they can work their way out of a title like anyone else through good behaviour, I assume you're only challenging the second and unrelated motion regarding banning them from the Senate, and not the "Not A Moderator" title nor loss of sig and av privileges?