The Mod Act

Article VIII. – Moderation

Section 1: Authority

a) The Administrators, Global Moderators, and Government Officials (collectively, “Mod Team”) shall be responsible for the moderation of the regional forum, in such a way described by the forum service provider.
Click to expand...
Add that it's Invision Free here? :P
b) The Mod Team shall have the authority to vote upon and pass additional forum rules beyond the terms of service set forth by the forum service provider, in an effort to ensure the safety and enjoyment of all forum members. Such rules must be passed by a 50% majority.
Click to expand...
I'm not quite sure I agree with this, as the Mod Team could potentially pass some outrageous laws depending on the changing government, since the government makes up over 3/4 of the Mod Team. I'd almost rather see the RA have to pass rule changes.
c) The Mod Team shall have the authority to administer warnings to members for violations of the Terms of Service or forum rules, provided the moderator is able to provide sufficient reasoning for the warning.
i) Moderators should make an effort to caution members concerning behavior prior to issuing a full warning.
Click to expand...
Sufficient for whom? And how should cautions occur? In threads or via PMs?
Section 2: Accountability

a) Members of the forum who are warned for a Terms of Service violation have the right to protest the warning. Such protests should be posted in the Moderation Discussion forum. All protests shall be reviewed by the Mod Team, which shall vote to decide if the ruling given should be upheld or dismissed. Such votes shall take place in a publicly viewable forum and will require a 50% majority in order to pass of fail.
Click to expand...
pass OR fail
b) If a member of the Mod Team is involved in a discussion in which they believe a Terms of Service or forum rules violation has occurred, they are required to consult at least one other member of the Mod Team before taking action.
Click to expand...
This is a little silly, as you're sure to find at least *one* person of a 20 person body that agrees with you on an action you should take. Can we up it to 2 or three maybe?
c) Should a member of the Mod Team be found to be abusing the powers issued to them as a result of government position, any Regional Assembly member may request the removal of their moderator power for the duration of their term. Such requests should be addressed to the Court of The North Pacific. In cases of severe abuse, this may serve as grounds for impeachment of the government officer.
Click to expand...
Hersfold, you're switching back and forth on the definition of the Mod Team. I think in most cases you mean it to be everyone, but here it has to just be the governmental members of the Mod Team. >_>
And what about the case where an admin or global mod is part of the gov't? (conflict with below)
d) Should a Administrator or Global Moderator be found to be abusing moderator powers that do not come as a result of holding government office, any member of the forum may request a temporary removal of their position, for a period not to last longer than one week. Such requests should be addressed to the Court of The North Pacific.
Click to expand...
AN administrator
e) In cases of severe or repeated abuse of an Administrator’s or Global Moderator’s non-governmental power, any member of the forum may file a petition, to be signed by at least 50%+1 of the Regional Assembly, to remove permanently or temporarily the Administrator or Global Moderator from their position. Once 50%+1 of the Regional Assembly has signed the petition, the remaining Administrator(s) are to immediately remove the Administrator or Global Moderator from power.
f) Should the Root Administrator be recalled through the procedures set forth in clause e), the Root Administrator will be required to give the password to their account to the remaining Administrator. This Administrator is then to log onto the account, change the password, and disable all posting rights of that account. The recalled Root Administrator may register a new account at that time.
Click to expand...
See.... this is why making the Root admin account in your own name is bad...
g) Should at any time an Administrator or Global Moderator be removed from their position, the Mod Team shall be responsible for finding a suitable replacement within one week.
Click to expand...
Is it then settled that there shall be 2 admins and 3 global mods? If those numbers increase in the future, is there a bare minimum needed?
Section 3: Forum Bans

Should a member of the forum repeatedly violate the Terms of Service set forth by the forum service provider, or violate them in such a way that is illegal under United States Federal law or international law, the Mod Team has the authority to issue a permanent ban by the following procedures:
Click to expand...
Cathyy already mentioned the laws thing. Just violate IF's ToS and Forum rules. No RL laws.
a) The member must first be publicly and privately informed of the potential for a forum ban.
b) The Mod Team must provide sufficient evidence to support the forum ban in a public area.
c) The Mod Team must provide a period of at least three days in which the accused member may post a defense. They retain the right to have another member represent them.
d) The Mod Team must hold a vote in a publicly viewable forum to determine if the accused member should be banned. The vote must possess a 2/3 majority if the ban is to be imposed.
e) The Regional Assembly is to then hold a vote confirming the ban based on the evidence and defense provided. If 50%+1 of the Regional Assembly is in favor of the ban, the ban will be immediately imposed.
f) No member is to be banned via IP address unless they have attempted to circumvent a ban placed upon them by the procedures outlined above. In this event, the Mod Team need only provide proof of the circumvention to enforce the IP address ban.
Click to expand...
Is there going to be anything on previewing posts of users? That's a pretty significant imposition that happens before a ban, is there any regulation of that that will get included in this?

EDIT: Bah wasn't done.
 
Former English Colony:
Add that it's Invision Free here? :P
Click to expand...
Well, they are changing their name soon - ah, whatever. I'll toss it in.
I'm not quite sure I agree with this, as the Mod Team could potentially pass some outrageous laws depending on the changing government, since the government makes up over 3/4 of the Mod Team.  I'd almost rather see the RA have to pass rule changes.
Click to expand...
It's what happens now... grr. Fine. Maybe the Mod Team has to approve any forum rule passed by the RA?
Sufficient for whom?  And how should cautions occur?  In threads or via PMs? 
Click to expand...
Sufficent enough to prove your point - if the accused believes that it's insufficent, they can file a protest. It's kind of hard to define that legally.

I'll include some bits about the procedure for cautions. There should be a public post, as well as a PM sent through the warning system to tell the member.

pass OR fail
Click to expand...
Oops. I blame Word's spell-checker. :P

This is a little silly, as you're sure to find at least *one* person of a 20 person body that agrees with you on an action you should take.  Can we up it to 2 or three maybe?
Click to expand...
Ok.

Hersfold, you're switching back and forth on the definition of the Mod Team.  I think in most cases you mean it to be everyone, but here it has to just be the governmental members of the Mod Team. >_>
And what about the case where an admin or global mod is part of the gov't?  (conflict with below)
Click to expand...
Here, I intended for it to apply to everyone. If an admin or GM is a member of the gov't, then they shouldn't be treated any differently that the rest if they abuse the powers specific to their office. The additional bits below apply only when they use the powers that they only have because they are a GM or Admin.

Whenever I use "Mod Team", I do mean everyone.

AN administrator
Click to expand...
THis time I blame the fact that the grammar checker is usually wrong and I've started ignoring it as a result.

See.... this is why making the Root admin account in your own name is bad...
Click to expand...
Apparently.

Is it then settled that there shall be 2 admins and 3 global mods?  If those numbers increase in the future, is there a bare minimum needed?
Click to expand...
I left that out so it could be changed if neccessary... do you think it really needs to be specified?

Cathyy already mentioned the laws thing.  Just violate IF's ToS and Forum rules.  No RL laws. 
Click to expand...
Ok. IF ToS includes RL laws anyway.

Is there going to be anything on previewing posts of users?  That's a pretty significant imposition that happens before a ban, is there any regulation of that that will get included in this? 
Click to expand...

Under the warning system already in place, the member would probably be on indefinite mod preview already anyway. I can throw it in there.
 
Hersfold:
I left that out so it could be changed if neccessary... do you think it really needs to be specified?
Click to expand...

I was more thinking that if we had more admins or mods then necessary, losing one wouldn't *have* to result in a replacement. Right now I think we're at the bare minimum. 2 admins and 3 GMs seems just enough for us.
 
God, this is depressing.

All I can see this leading to is increasing regulation in an over-regulated region. I know of no other region in NS that treats its administration with such suspicion as this is showing.

I cannot help the uncomfortable feeling of itching between my shoulderblades that for some at least the enthusiasm for this legislation comes from the names that are on this admin list, rather than the fact that this forum has moderation and administration.

Bottom line for me is this, either we trust Hersfold to host the community and government of this region, or we do not. If we do, then there is no reason for this legislation. we have survived without it since 2003. If we do not, then we ought not to pussy around, but should ship out to another board. I think we are up to z15 now.
 
flemingovia:
God, this is depressing.

All I can see this leading to is increasing regulation in an over-regulated region. I know of no other region in NS that treats its administration with such suspicion as this is showing.

I cannot help the uncomfortable feeling of itching between my shoulderblades that for some at least the enthusiasm for this legislation comes from the names that are on this admin list, rather than the fact that this forum has moderation and administration.

Bottom line for me is this, either we trust Hersfold to host the community and government of this region, or we do not. If we do, then there is no reason for this legislation. we have survived without it since 2003. If we do not, then we ought not to pussy around, but should ship out to another board. I think we are up to z15 now.
Click to expand...
We may have existed since 2003 without this legislation, but take a look at the Region during that time. Tell me that when s2 was home of the Underground/NPC there was concern about protecting people's rights who disagreed with the administration. For the most part the same also applied to the s4/s9 NPD/TNPG. It all comes down to a bitter conflict that wrapped up almost a year ago...

We are not like other Feeder regions. We've had our history and no other. The advocates for the law are seeking some sort of protection so that minor infractions don't cause a moderator to go off the deep end and do something drastic.

Sureley you would have wanted these protections when Moldavi was in charge?
 
< flirts dangerously close to the deep end. :o

Seriously, if the community thinks it is wise to pass laws regulating moderator action, then I will of course abide by them.

However, it would sadden me to think I had to relinquish my duties as Global Mod if I wanted to run for office sometime in the future. From where I sit, it seems unfair. It is certain I will oppose any legislation that calls for such a concession on my part.

Also, I am unclear about the stipulations regarding moderating a thread in which one is a participant. Does that mean that I have to refrain from engaging in a lively debate if I happen to be the only mod up at that hour? Does it mean if I have stated an opinion on an issue 3 days ago and it suddenly takes an obscenely offensive turn, then I can't step in?

Take a look at what has been proposed and make sure it is what you really want.
 
If I may take a page from the "other game" - -

What about maintaining anonymous moderation accouints, completely disassociated with the IC personae?
 
What about maintaining anonymous moderation accouints, completely disassociated with the IC personae?
Click to expand...

That wouldn't really work... someone would find out by the posting style who was who, or something, thus ruining the system.
 
Sureley you would have wanted these protections when Moldavi was in charge?
Click to expand...

Do you honestly believe that if Modavi was in charge these protections, or any other, would have mattered a damn?
 
This bores me. :tb3:

Sureley you would have wanted these protections when Moldavi was in charge?
Click to expand...

And therein lies the biggest problem with this region as I see it. Most of the rest stems from this. The general attitude of this region seems to be reactionary paranoia over something that happened over a year ago. Also, plenty of other problems stem from the fact that so many biases and, in some cases, genuine RL hatreds are carrying over from Pixiedance. On both sides. Move on.

Besides that, I don't like regulation. ConconII time? (we don't need no committees, conventions are secksi)

Asides from the admins occassionally acting too soon on things (and then later often being forced to fall back on "well we all know that it would have gotten bad" as a result), there isn't too much of a problem.

(side note @Cathyy) I'd still say the Delegate is more powerful than the Admin, as the delegate can create a new forum, post it in the WFE, and take down the old one.
 
I agree with almost everyone's argument in part!!

We probably do not need a "law" governing moderation of this forum!! We just need commonsense and for those charged with administrating and moderating this forum to take a step back before they act!!

If people are aggrieved by the actions of a moderator/Admininstrator then they should have an avenue for complaint that is not merely asking the person that modeated them in the first place to change their mind!!

I do not think that avenue should be the RA, it is too slow and airing such laundry publicly is probably not in anyone's best interest!!

A vote of the moderation team should be the first por of call and I have found that when this has happened inthe past that reason wins over in the end!! If the complainant is not happy with the moderation team's decision then they could request it go to the RA as a last resort!!

As for the moderation team arbitrarily creating "forum rules", I think this is a terrible idea!! I see no reason for a small group of largely handpicked people to decide rules that have or could have a major impact on all users of the forum!!

Personally, I see no need for any forum rules additional to those already implied by accepting IF TOS when you register an account on a forum!! The only exception would be where specific areas of the forum are for specific topics and the need for these requirements to be respected!!
 
I suggest we should keep administration and moderation as far away from the in-game government that we possibly can. Moderation issues are not something that should ever be submitted to any political entity, RA, Cabinet, UN Delegate or other. That is the way we can keep politics away from moderation. Politics removed, mod work doesn't need to be nor is supposed to be a democratic process, just applying the TOS. As Tresville said in related s2 thread in Jan 2005:
Admin is not a government position but rather a forum slave..practically...it is a service job given to only the most trusted members (which is why i never asked to be one).
Click to expand...

My view is that root admin position is filled best when it is filled permanently. Global moderators positions could be cycled, but again I do not think that RA or The Cabinet would be the right entity to choose them. Anyone with administrator status should respect the vote of confidence that the region has given him/her, so if offered, refuse to take any office that could lead in a major conflict of interest (at least Delegate, PM, MoIIA, MoD, MoEA, MoJ). Not the other way (that when elected in Cabinet, should give up admin status). I think administrating a forum is more important for the game and the players. On the contrary, a permanent spot in SC could be just suitable for admin.

Heft:
(side note @Cathyy) I'd still say the Delegate is more powerful than the Admin, as the delegate can create a new forum, post it in the WFE, and take down the old one.
Click to expand...
Touché.

Oh well, I'll post more when I've gathered any relevant thoughts.
 
As a matter of personal principle I stepped down as admin for the duration of my delegacy. This is because I felt that the combination of Administration powers and delegate powers was too much to put into one persons hand.

I would like to see this accepted as a general principle, however, I cannot see why forum administration precludes someone from holding government position up to and including Prime Minister.
 
flemingovia:
As a matter of personal principle I stepped down as admin for the duration of my delegacy. This is because I felt that the combination of Administration powers and delegate powers was too much to put into one persons hand.
Click to expand...

Sounds reasonable and wise.

flemingovia:
I would like to see this accepted as a general principle, however, I cannot see why forum administration precludes someone from holding government position up to and including Prime Minister.
Click to expand...

I guess what I am talking about is applying some kind of laïcité or freedom of press here. Keeping the duties separated is a task for anyone, this is not a statement of mistrust in any way. It would secure some space for the opposition regardless of the goodwill of government AND it would save the government officials from being falsely accused of "biased" mod act. Also, some future admins/mods or government officials may not have the same amount of self-discipline as the ones we are having now, so it would at least slow them down.
 
My problem with the idea of separating government and all mod positions is the lack of available trusted personnel. We have enough trouble staffing gov't positions now, *without* stopping all the admin/mods from running.
 
@ FEC:
Valid point in pragmatic sense. My view was more theoretical. In theoretical sense the obvious cure for lack of trustworthy people would be gathering more of them here. Easy to say, I know. I'd just like to see that the view I have stated previously would have some effect on the compromise the possible Mod Act will be. Maybe we will have enough people here some day.
 
Wow, I'm enjoying the long posts with point by point analysis. And no, that wasn't sarcasm.

The fundamental problem, and this touches on what FEC said earlier, is that an admin/mod is inherently an OOC position in NS, and the laws that we create are inherently IC. Therefore, if we attempt to merge the two, there will always be problems because the OOC world can always control the game world. For example, a mod could just go haywire and lock us all out.

I agree in principle that global mods should step down from any government functions; however, this creates a problem in-game.. I'm sure many people would not want to hold a job that doesn't allow them to actually PARTICIPATE in NS, which is what we're all here for. Hence, the turnover of global admins would be great, and we would have a tough time finding people that we like to execute the job.

Unfortunately, this leads me to the inevitable conclusion that any mod law would be patently unusable for the following reason -- If the mod in question goes crazy and we have to invoke a mod law, it likely will not do any good. The reason is quite simple -- if a mod goes crazy and tries to wreck the forum, he won't "obey" any laws we conjure up anyway, because at that point s/he has lost all respect for the game. (Either that or they never had respect for the game to begin with).

Therefore, if a mod gets a little too overeager, I believe the popular will is powerful enough to restrain him/her, especially because we give some mod privileges to those who are elected. And a little overeagerness can be corrected by simply voting for different people who will be more moderate. However, nothing can protect us (short of a forum move) of a mod who is extremely overeager. Hence, in both situations, a mod law would be worthless.
 
A problem in this thread is that folks keep confusing mods, global mods and admins.

Mods, in general, cannot delete posts, and have no access to the admin CP, so cannot "lock us out". On this forum they do not have super mod powers.

Admins are the ones with the power to delete threads, delete forums, shut the board, set word filtering, alter the skin etc etc. At present that is only Hersfold and myself.
 
:eyebrow:

Hmmmm. Interesting.

I see little to no point in any of this.

Ultimately this comes down to how much you trust the Admins. Or more precisely (as I assume the Root Admin can remove any other admin if they so wish) how much you trust the Root Admin. And if there is a feeling that we can't trust Hersfold to make the right decisions or overturn the wrong ones of others, then our problems are considerably bigger, and would require much more than simple legislation to fix.
 
flemingovia:
A problem in this thread is that folks keep confusing mods, global mods and admins.

Mods, in general, cannot delete posts, and have no access to the admin CP, so cannot "lock us out". On this forum they do not have super mod powers.

Admins are the ones with the power to delete threads, delete forums, shut the board, set word filtering, alter the skin etc etc. At present that is only Hersfold and myself.
Click to expand...
That is my fault.

When I refer to "mods", I'm really referring to "admins". I was just lazy in my terminology.
 
Yeah, here's a basic description of all mod powers:

Deputy Minister/Cabinet Minister/Other Gov't Offices can do the following in forums applicable to their office:
Un/Pin topics
Un/Lock topics
Move Topics
Rename topics
Bump topics
Edit posts
Merge/Split topics
Warn members (includes ability to mod preview, remove post rights, or suspend accounts)

Global Moderators can do all of the above, but in almost all forums. As a result, they can view and post in (almost) every forum. They are not "Super Mods", however, and as such cannot delete posts or view IP addresses.

Flemingovia is a Root Administrator, and has almost full use of the Admin CP. He can edit the forum; turn things on, off, left, right, upside down; edit member accounts (except my own); and do just about anything except for deleting the board.

Hersfold is the number one account, and owns the forum, and can literally do anything the software will allow me to do were I so inclined. (I did switch from 3rd to 1st person, in case that confused anyone) Don't worry, I'm not going to go berzerk and delete the forum.

Nam:
Ultimately this comes down to how much you trust the Admins. Or more precisely (as I assume the Root Admin can remove any other admin if they so wish) how much you trust the Root Admin. And if there is a feeling that we can't trust Hersfold to make the right decisions or overturn the wrong ones of others, then our problems are considerably bigger, and would require much more than simple legislation to fix.
Click to expand...
Ding ding ding. If you guys really don't like us, put up a vote of no confidence. Legislation is only likely to make things worse.
 
@ Flemingovia
I thought all the time I knew what I was talking about and tried to be consistent with it. After Hersfold's post above I know I knew what I was talking about.

@ Hersfold
I think you got your vote of confidence the day this community moved into your forums. If people really doubted the current adminstrators, they probably would talk about it somewhere else.
 
I'm not convinced that any legislation is necessary.

The vote to move the official forums was in part based on the principle that forum moderation actions should be independent of the government, and government action should be independent of fourm moderation/administration.

For it to work, there has to be a consensus about who can act responsibly as admid/global mods.

To use myself as an example. I have deliberately stayed out of elected Cabinet service so that there would be at least one global mod/admin not holding an elected regional office. As long as we have some admin/global mods outside the government, then there is a check-and-balance to the system, and the system will work just fine. When I've seen the need to moderate, I have almost always asked for input from the admins and the other mods first before acting. As far as I know, no one has ever complained about my moderation actions.....in part because I have asked for other opinions when I was not certain of whether there was a need to act. I think that is a sound practice, and I commend it as the best way of addressing this. I do not think we need to pass a law about it.
 
The thing with this, if Admining and Moderation was just treated in a less serious way, we would be fine. This regulation will only be necissary if The admins continue to be as...tight fisted as they are now. I mean come on do we need to be as heavy with the bans, warnings and "IF rule violations"? Its just common sense!



On a side note:
Cathyy, Insane Power, Poltsamaa
Click to expand...
Glad to see the old crowd are being lumped back together! Everyone being thought of the same way? My Arse!
 
Fulhead Land:
On a side note:
Cathyy, Insane Power, Poltsamaa
Click to expand...
Glad to see the old crowd are being lumped back together! Everyone being thought of the same way? My Arse!
Click to expand...
You forgot the rest of that quote...
when I have people like Cathyy, Insane Power, Poltsamaa, constantly harassing me for every little thing I do every damn day of the week.
Click to expand...
They're grouped together simply because they are the ones most actively against the administration of this forum. If you can find someone else who's protesting as loudly, I'll add them to the list. Being mentioned in my post has no effect on how I'll treat you.
 
Aside from the bickering of concerned partisan parties, is their any criticisms of the language or spirit of the legislation other than the claim that it's not necessary.

I'm glad that we have had a true debate examining the true nature of this issue however I think the discussion has muted most of the region with the debate centered solely on Hersfold's actions regarding IP. If the Speaker is willing, I'd like to move this proposal on the path to a vote. Where the region can truly voice their (often silent and lurking) opinions.

And to respond to the discussion, this legislation is not a targeted strike against Hersfold but a clear legal response to the most powerful unchecked force in our off-site community. Since voluntary agreements and an adoption of a "rules of engagement" outline with no specific or serious repercussions have failed, it is against the spirit and values of our region to have any position of power unchecked. This is not a critique of the mods but a preventative measure to avoid unrest, if we truly trust the mods as I've done without concern during my long devotion to this region then this proposal should be of no concern. Trust us to trust you; don't allow old rivalries to sink the chance to prove just how honourable you've been and are.
 
mr_sniffles:
And to respond to the discussion, this legislation is not a targeted strike against Hersfold but a clear legal response to the most powerful unchecked force in our off-site community. Since voluntary agreements and an adoption of a "rules of engagement" outline with no specific or serious repercussions have failed, it is against the spirit and values of our region to have any position of power unchecked. This is not a critique of the mods but a preventative measure to avoid unrest, if we truly trust the mods as I've done without concern during my long devotion to this region then this proposal should be of no concern. Trust us to trust you; don't allow old rivalries to sink the chance to prove just how honourable you've been and are.
Click to expand...
So which proposal?

Some of the proposals made are intended to be targeted strikes, Sniffles. And even those intended otherwise could end up harming our region, as they require extra, unneccessary procedures be taken to handle rule breakers. If the mods are truly trusted, then why do we suddenly treat them as tyrants? You elect more than 75% of them, for heaven's sake, let them do their jobs. This has nothing to do with "old rivalries", it has to do with the forum's safety and well-being.

Imagine, for right now, this hypothetical situation. For some reason, somehow, Tweedy, the renowned troublemaker, banned from countless forums and even NS itself, manages to return to our forum. In keeping with the terms of his ban, which was voted on by the moderation team (more or less the Cabinet at the time), I go to look for his IP address to kick him off a fifth time, when suddenly I remember I can't just do that. I have to wait for one of the Justices to get on, so I can file charges, proving that an IP address I know perfectly well to be Tweedy's is indeed his. OR I have to post a topic in the Regional Assembly and wait a week while they vote to ban Tweedy again. And after all that I still probably have to get it approved by the Cabinet, who are all mods anyway. By this point, Tweedy will have been able to post obscenities and other abuse in every topic on this forum at least twice. Should we have the horrible luck of playing guest to an IF staff member just then, we are, to put it politely, screwed. All this abuse getting posted, and there's the administrator, doing nothing.

If this is really what you lot want to happen, then fine. Really, I don't mind. Just remember that this could potentially happen with any member. One of the old-timers gets their account hacked. Someone registers and acts like Sir Spamalot. A heated debate goes WAY out of control. It could happen. It very well may. So if this is really what you lot want to happen, save me the grief and just file a vote of no confidence so that I won't be the one getting banned from Invisionfree.

Edit for grammar.
 
And to respond to the discussion, this legislation is not a targeted strike against Hersfold but a clear legal response to the most powerful unchecked force in our off-site community
Click to expand...


mmmm. I still wonder what Hersfold has done that requires a "legal response"; and why are certain parties so worried that he is "unchecked".

Personally, I would regard the passing of a mod act as originally proposed in this thread as a de facto vote of no confidence in Hersfold as Root admin. Effectively it would be saying that Hersfold's power needs checking, and his wings need clipping because we do not trust him.

If this mod act goes to a vote and is passed, I would expect the community immediately to look for another foum with an admin who can be trusted.

Question is: who would you trust more than Herfold?
 
I'm not referring to Cathyy's proposal but mine on the first page. And yes, hers was an attack but also for personal gain; to completely absolve her in her feared situation.

The only aspect of my proposal which would slow down banning, is if a mod was partaking in a debate in which s/he chose to close in a conflict of interest. It does not in anyway affect their ability to warn or ban if they were not part of the original discussion.

Who do I trust more than Hersfold? God but s/he is not capable (nor interested) in moderating this forum.
 
Hersfold:
They're grouped together simply because they are the ones most actively against the administration of this forum. If you can find someone else who's protesting as loudly, I'll add them to the list. Being mentioned in my post has no effect on how I'll treat you.
Click to expand...
No, I just call you out when you are being a knob!! :lol:

Seriously (ok, well not really!!), I don't have a major issue with the Admins or the moderators, just their behaviour some of the time!! When I see the Admins deliberately not complying with requests in Embassies because of who the Embassy belongs to I call them out on it!! When I see attempts to silence people on the forum citing TOS and/or "forum rules" violations that are based on nothing other than bovine excrement, then yes, I'll say something about it!!

Contrary to popular opinion, I do not make noise if I do not see something legitimately wrong happening!! You'll notice nobody got harrassed while I was PM regardless of their opinions of me!!

But if it make it easier for you all to compartmentalise things then don't let me stop you!!

Yes, I'll go and sit in the corner now!! The corner labelled "loudly protesting anti-admin types only"!! :evil:
 
emhu04033.jpg


Poltsamaa the penguin goes to the corner!!!!
 
mr_sniffles:
I'm not referring to Cathyy's proposal but mine on the first page. And yes, hers was an attack but also for personal gain; to completely absolve her in her feared situation.
Click to expand...
No, my proposal was not attack. Though your comment on it could easily be seen as flame-bait.

I wrote a proposal which would bring the Forum Admins and Mods under the same sort of accountability that the Delegate is already held to.

Furthermore the Court has already ruled that the actions Hersfold proposed to take as Admin which would involve me being banned from the forum would be illegal.

An act to act as a check on the actions of the Admin and to provide a framework of accountability is no more about Hersfold individually than the controls on the Delegate are about a lack of trust in Erastide.

In fact the Constitution itself is incomplete as it currently stands since it quite clearly states that no-one may be banned from the forum except as explicitly directed in the Constitution and then fails to give any guidance or procedure for a forum ban.

My proposal would have put structure in place to allow for legal forum bannings when necessary. That would actually help the Admins do their job, without the constant threat of legal action.

Furthermore Hersfold's scaremongering regarding a potential 'Tweedy' simply doesn't hold up under my proposal since it allowed for moderator preview as soon as a decision was made to forum ban someone (ie while all the other things prior to it were going on). So, no, under my proposal there would be no risk to the forum whatsoever.

It would strengthen the Admins' position and give them a better basis on which to work than 'because we say so'.
 
Cathyy:
Furthermore Hersfold's scaremongering regarding a potential 'Tweedy' simply doesn't hold up under my proposal since it allowed for moderator preview as soon as a decision was made to forum ban someone (ie while all the other things prior to it were going on). So, no, under my proposal there would be no risk to the forum whatsoever.
Click to expand...
Except that it would give the moderation team extra work and grief. But since it leaves YOU perfectly unharmed, it's ok, I suppose. I apologize if I am being rude, but all this is extremely disheartening and unsettling.

Fine. If this is to continue, get it over with. But let it be known that if this does pass, if this is put into law, then I, as well as the rest of the moderation team, will continue to do whatever is necessary to ensure the safety of this forum and it's members. As we always have done.
 
An act to act as a check on the actions of the Admin and to provide a framework of accountability is no more about Hersfold individually than the controls on the Delegate are about a lack of trust in Erastide.
Click to expand...

Except that the opening sentence of this entire thread reads:

I feel that given the certain atmosphere, we must enstate a set of rules and guidelines as to how Root Administrators can act and limits to their powers.
Click to expand...

This is not objective legislation. It is proposed in response to recent admin actions, and must be considered a value judgement concerning them.
 
flemingovia:
An act to act as a check on the actions of the Admin and to provide a framework of accountability is no more
This is not objective legislation. It is proposed in response to recent admin actions, and must be considered a value judgement concerning them.
Click to expand...
As it stands the Constitution is incomplete. There is it appears no legal way to ban a member of the regional assembly since they certainly fall under the 'protection' of the Constitution and it clearly states that no nation may be banned from the forum except as explicitly laid out in the Constitution.

Since there is nowhere in the Constitution which lays out grounds for or procedure for a nation to be banned from the forum then that seems to tie the Admin's hands considerably.

If anything I'm giving you a legal way to ban me from the forum,, one which if you follow it I could not challenge you in the Court over it and yet you see it as an attack!

Whatever the original reasoning for this thread being started clearly there is an omission in the Constitution which I would suggest puts the forum far more 'at risk' than a proposal in which a potentially banned nation is 'legally' put on pre-moderation during the legal measures necessary for them to be banned.

I've already indicated that I'd certainly be willing to concede aspects of my proposal (when Hersfold pointed out that requiring RA approval before pre-moderation could put the forum at risk for example).

And legislation and the constitution are by their very nature reactive. I'd suggest it's almost impossible for it not to be. You meet a situation and you look at why it went wrong. Hersfold proposed action which wouldd be illegal. Yet I concede that there is a case (even in my own case) for possibly banning an IP address linked to another player if it is for the greater good.

That could be written into this proposal too. But if you try to sidetrack it with talk about a 'vote of no confidence' then needless to say eventually those who are interested in this being worked on will grow tired and the rather unsatisfactory status quo will continue - which of course appears to suit those who for some reason see themselves as having something to lose here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top