[Discussion] Self-Appointed Deputy Mods

[Noble Ire]

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?

Yes; I should have made my stance more clear. The loss of sig and avatar are temporary, as is the title assuming improvement is demonstrated, but as I understand it, banishment from the Senate cannot be normally undone. I do not believe such a course of action is warranted at this time.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

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?

Yes; I should have made my stance more clear. The loss of sig and avatar are temporary, as is the title assuming improvement is demonstrated, but as I understand it, banishment from the Senate cannot be normally undone. I do not believe such a course of action is warranted at this time.

That was to be separate from the titling poll, regardless. May I therefore secure your support for the titling poll to go ahead?

[Noble Ire]

I do not object to the creation of a titling poll, no.

[Connor MacLeod]

I'm of two minds on this. One, the backseat modding IS annoying, but on the other as far as violations/activities go, its rather retarded. (Brilliant job whoever masterminded that.)

Kuroneko makes a good point (excecpt in Ein's case, ,because phongn was right there.) AT worst if they DO get punishment, it probably shouldn't be worse than a titling. Though we could add a warning that if any of them do something like this again while still titled, they're automatically up for more severe penalties (like sig/avatar privelege loss.)

I think, though, we really have to find out who the fuck masterminded this. Someone clearly did, because the situation is far too well coordinated to be conicidental (duh). Perhaps the mastermind should deserve greater punishment, since they thought it up to begin with? Question is, will he have the gonads to step forward and admit it?

Having read this now, I may have to reconsider Chithead... *sigh* Same provisions for him though too (if he does it again, it gets worse.)

[The Duchess of Zeon]

As an objection to the content of the titling poll has not been filed nor can it be sustained, and the main objections have been clarified and dealt with amicably, I now move to close debate and proceed to the poll which will decide actual guilt and punishment, or innocence, where the will of the Senate can be more directly expressed. Is the motion seconded?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I'm of two minds on this. One, the backseat modding IS annoying, but on the other as far as violations/activities go, its rather retarded. (Brilliant job whoever masterminded that.)

Kuroneko makes a good point (excecpt in Ein's case, ,because phongn was right there.) AT worst if they DO get punishment, it probably shouldn't be worse than a titling. Though we could add a warning that if any of them do something like this again while still titled, they're automatically up for more severe penalties (like sig/avatar privelege loss.)

I think, though, we really have to find out who the fuck masterminded this. Someone clearly did, because the situation is far too well coordinated to be conicidental (duh). Perhaps the mastermind should deserve greater punishment, since they thought it up to begin with? Question is, will he have the gonads to step forward and admit it?

Having read this now, I may have to reconsider Chithead... *sigh* Same provisions for him though too (if he does it again, it gets worse.)

Banning them from the Senate is an unrelated measure to the poll, as is investigating as to who the ringleader is. Do you object to the titling poll going forward now on the established grounds, seconded by Dalton?

[Ghost Rider]

The people involved should get some warning, the whole avatar and sig removal.

Though I feel the ringleader is the one who needs boot up his/her ass. The others (aside from Ein) have little to no record. A whap on the head is more effective and serves as a warning.

[Connor MacLeod]

Banning them from the Senate is an unrelated measure to the poll, as is investigating as to who the ringleader is.

If we decide to go ahead with the titling issue soon, then yeah we can treat it as a separet issue. I don't think its neccesarily divorced, though. For one thing, what if noone decides to admit to being a ringleader? Pressure might need to be brought to bear to find the one responsible, if we wish to do so. Titling AND sig/avatar priveleged removed might be applicable there (because they'd in effect be covering for the ringleader, wouldn't they.)

I'm kinda tired though, and its ahrd to give this any real attention, so I'm not sure I want to rush this either anyhow.

Do you object to the titling poll going forward now on the established grounds, seconded by Dalton?

Well actually now I'm getting fucking confused, and going back and rereading all this isn't helping. Nor is it that I'm being forced ot think this over ina very short period of time at a quater to one AM in the morning. Are we now suddnely droppig the "sig and avatar priveleges" and going with "jkust" a custom title or both?

Moreover, I'm not entirely sure (yet) its resolved. We've had slightly more than a handful of the Senators piping in with their opinions,a couple of Admins, and a handful of Mods. I'd also think it might be nice to give the other Senators and such a chance to add their 2 cents.

I mean seriously, this thing's only about a day fucking old.. what's the goddamn rush? Why the hell do we have to rush the titling poll? They aren't going anywhere, and I'm still thinking the matter over. I see no urgent need to rush things.

Besides, let them stew or suffer over a few days wondering what we're going to do. It'll help reinforce the point. And we can still go forward with chitty in the meantime. And I can think this over when I get some time when my eyes are not bloodshot and bleary and I want to fucking relax.

[Connor MacLeod]

Just to clarify: without digging extensively through all four pages of the Senate, I can note that many of our [Discussion] threads typically last at least a few days, sometimes longer.

In particular at least 3 "discussoin before Vote" debates [DarthDavid, Coberts, and Dennis Toy who IIRC actually can count twice) had at least a few days between the "discussion" and "vote" polls.

Again, as I said I see no need to rush any "vote" poll just yet. They aren't going anywhere.

Edit: Chitty is the exception as far as I can find, but now on self reflection should we have posted a "vote" poll when the discussion was still active (as near as I can tell a matter of hours separated them.) Wouldn't it just have been bloody easier to just post the "vote" poll if it was THAT important? I'm really getting a headache from having to think on this...

[Hotfoot]

Okay, so we have a semi-coordinated group of assholes who sent the same message to Chitty Von Richtoven. Admittedly annoying and stupid, but hardly a major offense. If we go down this road, why not title anyone that backseat mods? We've had MUCH worse cases of this in the past with several noted posters taking up the role of the "official rule enforcer".

Not to say they don't deserve a slap on the wrist for the coordinated PMs. It was just fucking stupid. I mean seriously, the same fucking message? Get real. If there was no response after one person, I can maybe see other people chiming in with "No, dude, seriously, the senate doesn't mess around man!"

So let them lose sig and av for two months, or something equally trivial if we must punish them. CTs seem excessive. I don't see a reason to ban them from the Senate because after this it's doubtful anyone would nominate them much less vote for them, and if there came a point where they did get nominations and votes, they presumably would have learned their lessons.

Yeah, harassment is against the rules, as is backseat modding, but this was done over "private" correspondence in an effort to try and keep Chitty from getting into further trouble. Chitty himself doesn't even seem that pissed off about it.

And I have to agree with Connor, there's something of a sense of urgency to go from discussion to poll right off the bat, something which I don't think is an optimal arrangement. In extreme cases, okay, yeah, I can see some cases for urgency, but most of the time in those extreme cases you want a mod or admin online to take out the offender right away, because whatever was posted is something we don't NEED to debate about because they are clearly illegal. Besides, what does it hurt to keep the discussion going a little longer? I mean, seriously, what do we lose? If they're going to self-destruct and do what Metavac and others have the moment it looks like they might get banned, they expedite the banning process and save us the trouble, and we get more time to look at the whole picture of a given situation.

I will say one thing about these marginal cases being brought to the senate, it has created a more favorable ratio of titles to bans than we've previously had, though not the way I had originally hoped we might change that ratio.

[Broomstick]

I think what bothers me most is that Ein has been here long enough to know better. Ein - you have disappointed me with your actions.

Meanwhile, I too am in favor of titling.

Sig and avatar for Ein, too - as I said, he should have known better, being a long-time poster here. The others... maybe not. So far as I know they haven't caused any violations prior to this, have they? First offense? Just titling and a warning.

Which I suppose might be a problem for the upcoming poll since that would mean trials with separate verdicts, but hey, just my opinion.

[Broomstick]

Okay, so we have a semi-coordinated group of assholes who sent the same message to Chitty Von Richtoven. Admittedly annoying and stupid, but hardly a major offense.

Individual back-seat moderating is bad enough, but these group tactics are very disturbing to me and I find them more of a problem than individual action.

If we go down this road, why not title anyone that backseat mods?

Because most such don't run in packs.

[Broomstick]

>sigh< Apparently Einhander is the "mastermind" and has confessed. :::shakes head:::

Custom title, and temporary suspension of avatar and sig - as I said, he's been here long enough to know better, I believe he's mature enough to accept the penalty, and smart enough to know what he needs to do to re-earn his good standing on this forum. I believe he will do so, given a chance and some time.

[Mad]

Considering Einhander's history of playing moderator and that he organized this, I'd support a CT of "Not A Moderator" for him. He should know better by now.

The warning the others have gotten is probably sufficient; I doubt they'll do something like this again. A "Not A Moderator" title doesn't fit them because they don't have a history of this.

Nobody needs to be added to the list of ineligible members for Senate nomination as a result of this incident. The rules for nomination have a provision to allow a member with a "spotty record" to be nominated, and the only rules for ineligibility are regarding asking for nominations in various forms.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Could we achieve a consensus agreement on sig & av suspension for all five for six months, and then run a separate CT poll for Einy as punishment for his being the ringleader in particular? I think that could be ground which could bring together all the opinions I've seen in this thread.

[Surlethe]

Could we achieve a consensus agreement on sig & av suspension for all five for six months, and then run a separate CT poll for Einy as punishment for his being the ringleader in particular? I think that could be ground which could bring together all the opinions I've seen in this thread.

I'll move in favor of this. I in particular am with Broomstick on this: Einy really should know better, since he is practically a founding member of the board. He's been around through uncountable numbers of backseat moderating cases, through mod changes, and has seen a multitude of examples of poor behavior; he has no excuse beyond foolishness and poor judgment.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Well, if someone else is willing to second the DoZ-Surlethe measure then we'll go ahead and run with that.

[The Yosemite Bear]

since Ein was the ring leader.....

should we take away his image posting privledges? (snicker)

[Knife]

Grrr. I'm having a problem with this. Granted, organizing a PM spam is bad and probably needs to be dealt with. However, on that general tangent, lots of people over the years have sent or even in threads posted 'polite reminders' to newish memebers.

So I'm unsure what should be 'punished' here. Should we punish the remarkably untactfull reminder of rules (ironically spam against spam) or should we punish the organized aspect of it? Which part is truely being more 'wannabe Mod'?

I would submit that actually organizing a spam feast is more in line of being something to punish and discourage on the board. The utterly unimaginitive message and those who sent it should be mocked, but not necessarily punished in the traditional Senate way.

Cut the head off the snake I say, string up the ringleader for daring to challenge the authority of the Administration and let his limp form stand as a warning to his conspiritors and all future rebels.

My thoughts on it anyway.

[Coyote]

I'll admit I've sent PM to newbies before if it seemed like they weren't spammish types that were just floundering with the culture. I haven't done this for some time and it was usually just a brief exchange meant to be informal and friendly, with no other outsiders brought in.

That said, this PM vigilantism is obviously not in the same spirit-- essentially a threat in nature, and intimidating to be the recipient of such a well-timed mob mailing. It's reminiscent of the Mafia, really.

A temporary sig/av loss for the ones with basically clean records; but Ein really should have known better. Damage is mitigated a tiny amount by his taking responsibility. A "Not A Moderator" title would be good; maybe we can review it after, say, 1 year?

[Connor MacLeod]

Well, if someone else is willing to second the DoZ-Surlethe measure then we'll go ahead and run with that.

Are you going to do me the courtesy of addressing why you seem intent on rushing all of this through the senate? you alreaady did it with chitty (which in my mind made his "discussion" thread absolutely pointless - it should have gone to a straight vote.) and now you seem intent on pushing forward for the spammer's punishment as quickly as you can. At the very least your fervor in this is looking a bit odd to me.

I do agree, however, that the Einy stuff can be handled separately.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Well, if someone else is willing to second the DoZ-Surlethe measure then we'll go ahead and run with that.

Are you going to do me the courtesy of addressing why you seem intent on rushing all of this through the senate? you alreaady did it with chitty (which in my mind made his "discussion" thread absolutely pointless - it should have gone to a straight vote.) and now you seem intent on pushing forward for the spammer's punishment as quickly as you can. At the very least your fervor in this is looking a bit odd to me.

I do agree, however, that the Einy stuff can be handled separately.

As a matter of fact, each time that someone has raised an objection, I have proposed a less harsh measure than before. Perhaps you should take account of the fact that I have in fact been eagerly modifying the level of punishment downwards. Furthermore, debate has not stopped, because, one, you objected to my prior proposal before I'd moved to close debate, and second, nobody seconded that motion.

As a matter of fact, motions to close debate happen all the time, and they actually serve as a test of support for that particular policy.

Now, in addressing your last points, they're fairly reasonable, and it was unquestionably the organized aspect that bothered me--it smacks to much of board vigilantism, essentially, from my perspective. Fair enough? I am proposing a minor and temporary punishment only at this stage as something which seems reasonable for the nature of what they did. The title for Einy could, in fact, perhaps warrant a separate debating thread from this one.

In fact, I'll start one now, and this thread will be for discussing the proposed collective punishment to all five of the loss of their sig and av privileges for six months.

[Broomstick]

Are you going to do me the courtesy of addressing why you seem intent on rushing all of this through the senate?

I'm was just attributing it to her general ruthless efficiency. Questioning it is sort of like asking why Shep wants to nuke things.

[Coyote]

Duchess makes the trains run on time!

(She really would, too, in the Imperial Realm of Her Majestyness!)

Really, in regards to the situation, how much leeway is there for discussion-- about exactly what punishment, yes, but that punishment should be had at all there's not much to talk about.

[Knife]

Really, in regards to the situation, how much leeway is there for discussion-- about exactly what punishment, yes, but that punishment should be had at all there's not much to talk about.

Really, for the stupid followers, I'm more than content to let go. I'm sure the Mods and Senate will not forget even if they forgive, so any further actions that demonstrate a history of craptacular participation of the board can be handled at that time. For the orchastrator, well he's got his own thread now.