Status check on Warning System Mod program

This program has been in place for just over 4 months now, with some people complaining about it, and others who apparently think they are making a difference with their participation.

So I want to do a status check via poll to see what the handful of people who give a damn either way think about it.

I am setting this up so your member name is visible, btw.

First vote

Hey Bobby,

I thought you were done with this place... (j/k...just couldn't resist).

WebSlave said:

This program has been in place for just over 4 months now, with some people complaining about it, and others who apparently think they are making a difference with their participation.

So I want to do a status check via poll to see what the handful of people who give a damn either way think about it.

I am setting this up so your member name is visible, btw.

Click to expand...

But... there have been a few adjustments to the rules which are being enforced and as recently as last night to the point value associated with a given warning and total warning level required for removal... And not every individual who you have participating has had that status for very long.

Given that there were changes made as recently as they were, it's impossible to tell. Given that you've recently come down with a hardline "I don't care if they're criminal scum as long as they pay me the fee to get the status" position, it's too early to tell if it'll be abused and tanked.

You can say that the program as a whole has been in place four months, but every time a new individual is added as a mod, everytime there's a clarification on a rule emphasis and everytime a change is made to the point values (of individual warnings or total till removal) it resets everything. Given the strength of conviction people have been expressing their viewpoints with recently- I doubt you'll get many, if any, logical analysis out of anyone- just kneejerk responses based on recent argument and rebuttal.

Unless of course the point is to simply compose a list of people who have a negative view of the system as it currently is. Thinking back on things, the number of decent folks who have been driven off and crucified for simply disagreeing is staggering, as are the number who have been proven correct in retrospect. I suppose it'd be easier to start twisting their motivation and characterising their dissenting opinion as something far more malicious than it actually is if you've got a list you can just fill in with checkmarks.

Holy Lucille-style-bullshit, Batman!

For the most part, I think the system had some great potential. Maybe we should require mods to have a GGC in good standing, if they fall below "par" , then they can't be a moderator on this forum. I'm just thinking out loud.

Bill & Amy said:

For the most part, I think the system had some great potential. Maybe we should require mods to have a GGC in good standing, if they fall below "par" , then they can't be a moderator on this forum. I'm just thinking out loud.

Click to expand...

I think you would be crossing the moderator portion with other aspects. It is based on how someone moderates not other areas. Also it is not a popularity contest and GGC could be used as a way to get back at a moderator by voting him a bad guy. If he is a bad moderator there are things that deal with that. Seperation of Church and State to use an analogy.

Let us do peer critiques and be supervised by Rich and the Super Mods. This performs the checks and balances better IMO then casting a vote. As you now see mods being put under closer scrutiny, justifiably so, with some of the warnings being revamped.

I'm trying to choose, and I guess since things have already changed then "things are somewhat better but need some changes" is the closest to how I feel about it.

I agree with pretty much everything said by Seamus~ Bills idea (with some tweaking as Alan suggests) sounds like it may help resolve some of my reservations. I'm very worried by a couple of the people I see have purchased moderation ability (particularly a few that never paid the higher membership until they could use that to moderate their fellows)

But when it comes right down to it~ I guess I just want to know why we have to do this again. I'm not trying to be nasty~ so please try not to interpret what I have to say that way~ but can't anyone else see this pattern? Seems to me over the several years I've been here whenever things begin to get bit slow and predictable~ some major change is installed~ that then flies promptly flies in the face of what ever the predictable "norm" has become....all the "old timers" (clique~ dirty dozen, whatever you want to call them) get up and arms....the new guys try to tell the old guys the way it should be.....the oldtimers spit in everyones face and half the "predictable standby" posters wind up walking out in a huff or banned. Things will start to die down again eventually~ but once it starts to get slow and predictable again~ another major change will be installed.......

Maybe it's just a function of my hating to be "upgraded"~ I like it kind of predictable. After all this finally calms down again.....can't we just go with predictable for a while?

I am not a poll person but I went with it anyway. My choice was based on the recent changes that mod abuse holds a higher warning which I totally agree with.

Bill & Amy said:

For the most part, I think the system had some great potential. Maybe we should require mods to have a GGC in good standing, if they fall below "par" , then they can't be a moderator on this forum. I'm just thinking out loud.

Click to expand...

On the surface this sounds like a workable plan, but thinking deeper about it exposes some substantial problems.

People have already expressed complaints about people using the GGC voting mechanisms in relation to situations unrelated to the BUSINESS aspects of the members participating in it. Although I am not too restrictive about such an interpretation, I can see where adding in yet another level of interpretation, such a person's actions as a moderator, will likely produce a precedent that I would likely regret in the future.

The warning point system mod program was designed with it's own inherent self contained feedback loop whereby all who are participating within it can effect corrective enforcement of the other participants actions via the warning points (Warning System Abuse). A rogue member in that group can be suspended and fined if the other participants collectively find this necessary to do. And as each will likely consider every other participating member as being representatives of the WHOLE group, it is in their best interests to enforce some minimum level of standards among their peers in how they act in this capacity.

Most people probably are not aware of it, but each time a WS mod uses the warning system they are presented with this warning:

IMPORTANT NOTICE: Assessing warnings to members should be used responsibly and with due care. The warning should be issued ONLY for posts which violate the site rules, in the strictest of interpretations. Personal vendettas or grudge point battles may result in your losing this privilege without warning.
Only one warning per violation in a single post should be issued by YOU. Do NOT issue warnings for posts that do not violate any site rules and done frivolously or maliciously. Warnings have the potential to suspend members from this site, and therefore ANY members who abuse this privilege without justifiable grounds may find themselves fined and suspended as well as potentially LOSE their membership status.

Click to expand...

So it's not like any WS mod using this tool will be unaware of the consequences of abusing that power. Each and every time they use the warning system, they will be reminded of this risk they take if it is abused. Yes, a WS mod most certainly can be fined and suspended from this site IF the other mods determine it is justified.

Tying the WS mods to being answerable to vindictive feedback from members via the GGC voting who they have warned for rule infractions may in fact neuter the entire program as those mods may resist enforcing the rules for fear of losing their GGC standing because of it. Any Participant level and above member can vote on the GGC poll as well as the Traders Ratings, which are directly tied to the GGC ratings. So in effect, it exposes the WS mods to a substantial amount of retaliation for doing what I had hoped they would do with this program. Which is, of course, enforce the rules here and take the burden off of my shoulders, as well as the system mods who carried this load for so long.

Combining the GGC with the WS mod program then makes BOTH systems at risk of failing in their respective roles. The GGC because it would lessen the actual business focus of it's design, and the WS mod program because it would put those mods in jeopardy of having their business reputation unfairly impacted from the votes stemming from blatant retaliation for enforcing the rules here. Which means, of course, that they will be reluctant to do the job they were asked to do because the risk would be too great.

Honestly, it would be pretty much the same as setting up an individual poll for each and every mod (of all types) being utilized as a popularity contest. Pretty much you can guarantee that anyone who a mod has had to reprimand will then vote negatively against this person in retribution. Which, of course, would be demeaning to those people to have them subjected to such belittlement. I am not about to subject them to such abuse.

Sorry, but no, that is not what I have in mind for this WS plan. Those members who opt into this plan are going to be answerable to me, the system mods, and their fellow WS mods exclusively. That was what I originally had in mind, and thus far I don't see any reason to change that direction.

In any event, I hope this explains my thought processes sufficiently. Thank you for the suggestion, but I hope you see why I would have difficulties implementing it.

WebSlave said:

Honestly, it would be pretty much the same as setting up an individual poll for each and every mod (of all types) being utilized as a popularity contest.

Click to expand...

Minus the "popularity contest" part... there may be something in that worth examining and refining.

Not polls open the the general membership of course, but as a hypothetical... Say there was a forum where the mods were the only ones with access, if concerns are raised about the integrity of a mod BY another mod- a poll could be created within that mod only forum- perhaps semi-anonymously; sending a request to see a poll opened through Rich who'd create a simple and straightforward thread which did not allow responses. "Should _____ have their status revoked" open it for say... three or four days and then require both a certain percentage of the active moderators to vote and then a certain substantial percentage voting for removal.

I'm not sure, offhand, what the number of active moderators is these days but let's say- for the sake of kindergarten level math, there are one hundred. Moderator A believes that there's a problem with the credibility, integrity or intentions of Moderator B. They use the PM system to request that a thread be generated with two poll options; one positive and one negative and the poll is left open for three days. In order for any changes to result, let's say 2/3rds of the mods need to weigh in with a vote, so 66-67 votes need to be cast by other mods. In order for a mod status to be revoked, 3/4ths (or whatever substantial percentage feels "right") of the votes need to be in favor of removal. If fifty people or more vote for removal... it happens.

This would restrict the decision making process to those individuals who have met the "invested in this site's success" requirements as set forth- AND leave it in the hands of those individuals who have some direct interest in keeping the group in line AND remove the responsibility for making the decision solo based on posts. If the percentages are set high enough, it would protect itself from abuses, since it'd need to be an overwhelmingly large group to convince if the basis for the "please start a poll" is something personal or petty. Straight "popularity contests" wouldn't generate the required minimum vote base to begin with and individuals who's status might be in doubt would never meet the majority voting negatively to actually remove them.

Mods who directly abuse the system have the warning point thing that might catch up with them, or in the best case scenario, correct their negative behaviors. Some of the recent objections were based more on the allowance of criminal scumbags into the ranks.

Where's the I don't care button?

I had to vote a little worse since ANYBODY can buy there way in and use there mod status to take personal shots. However I must admit that the higher warning points for system abuse should work to curb that for the most part.

Seamus Haley said:

Minus the "popularity contest" part... there may be something in that worth examining and refining.

Not polls open the the general membership of course, but as a hypothetical... Say there was a forum where the mods were the only ones with access, if concerns are raised about the integrity of a mod BY another mod- a poll could be created within that mod only forum- perhaps semi-anonymously; sending a request to see a poll opened through Rich who'd create a simple and straightforward thread which did not allow responses. "Should _____ have their status revoked" open it for say... three or four days and then require both a certain percentage of the active moderators to vote and then a certain substantial percentage voting for removal.

I'm not sure, offhand, what the number of active moderators is these days but let's say- for the sake of kindergarten level math, there are one hundred. Moderator A believes that there's a problem with the credibility, integrity or intentions of Moderator B. They use the PM system to request that a thread be generated with two poll options; one positive and one negative and the poll is left open for three days. In order for any changes to result, let's say 2/3rds of the mods need to weigh in with a vote, so 66-67 votes need to be cast by other mods. In order for a mod status to be revoked, 3/4ths (or whatever substantial percentage feels "right") of the votes need to be in favor of removal. If fifty people or more vote for removal... it happens.

This would restrict the decision making process to those individuals who have met the "invested in this site's success" requirements as set forth- AND leave it in the hands of those individuals who have some direct interest in keeping the group in line AND remove the responsibility for making the decision solo based on posts. If the percentages are set high enough, it would protect itself from abuses, since it'd need to be an overwhelmingly large group to convince if the basis for the "please start a poll" is something personal or petty. Straight "popularity contests" wouldn't generate the required minimum vote base to begin with and individuals who's status might be in doubt would never meet the majority voting negatively to actually remove them.

Mods who directly abuse the system have the warning point thing that might catch up with them, or in the best case scenario, correct their negative behaviors. Some of the recent objections were based more on the allowance of criminal scumbags into the ranks.

Click to expand...

In my opinion, thus would just be redundant. Since the only criteria relevant to judge how a WS mod is behaving in their position is the issuance of warning points, then the feedback control of themselves being issued "Warning System Abuse" will certainly do the job needed. With the above scenario, the only risk to an abusive WS mod is that they would lose their warning point capabilities. With the current system, as is, they risk not only that loss, but being suspended from this site with a $50 fine.

Personally, I think the sharper rebuke currently built into the system is sufficient. That, and I'm really not looking for more work for myself by having to manage popularity polls, even in a private forum.

I would even be for the warning points being categorized into member and moderator categories. For example, each category of warning would have a member/moderator varying point value:

Member: Profanity 2 Pts.
Moderator: Profanity 5 Pts.

We should quality control ourselves to a higher standard then a non-mod. No?

romad119 said:

I would even be for the warning points being categorized into member and moderator categories. For example, each category of warning would have a member/moderator varying point value:

Member: Profanity 2 Pts.
Moderator: Profanity 5 Pts.

We should quality control ourselves to a higher standard then a non-mod. No?

Click to expand...

While I agree with this there is a problem with it. There are people in the upper levels that do not choose to use their mod powers and just contribute as regular members who donated. It would not be fair to them if this were implicated.

I am not sure exactly how much work would be involved for Rich to split the ones that do and the ones that don't but I would guess it is more then he would want to tackle. Or not.

I have said before and agree with you, we as mods who choose to use the warning system SHOULD be held to a higher standard and that includes higher penalties when we have broken the rules.
Perhaps it would be much simpler that if a mod is acting so inapropriately that they are banned instead of the 50.00 they should be required to pay 100.00.

In either case one must watch for people who are abusing just because they do not like someone else.

Perhaps there should be a seperate level and a blue coin or something for those wishing to perform in a moderator function. Thats one way to distinguish?

WebSlave said:

In my opinion, thus would just be redundant. Since the only criteria relevant to judge how a WS mod is behaving in their position is the issuance of warning points, then the feedback control of themselves being issued "Warning System Abuse" will certainly do the job needed. With the above scenario, the only risk to an abusive WS mod is that they would lose their warning point capabilities. With the current system, as is, they risk not only that loss, but being suspended from this site with a $50 fine.

Personally, I think the sharper rebuke currently built into the system is sufficient. That, and I'm really not looking for more work for myself by having to manage popularity polls, even in a private forum.

Click to expand...

I was thinking less for direct misconduct through the mod system than of those individuals who, simply by existing and having the status, detract from the credibility and integrity of anything they're associated with. The kind of people who's inclusion into *anything* would cause others to shy away. "______ is allowed to vendor at which reptile show? Well, they aren't getting my table fee." sort of situations.

I have two or three questions about the way the mod thing works. If a moderator hits the point limit and gets banned, they pay their fee and are reinstaned as a member- are they reinstated at their former contributor level or is that wiped with the ban? Meaning; if they were banned, are they reinstated as a mod or a non-contributor level. If they are reinstated without the mod status, can they rebuy and reabuse it?

Additionally- while I think you found yourself a nice sort of bolthole by calling everything a "contribution" rather than outright selling access to certain services (and there are absolutely people who fall on both sides of that fence, some who contributed simply to contribute and some who looked at it as buying certain services) what happens, financially, to mods who have that status revoked? Do they get a prorated refund of their contribution?

Throwing out another hypothetical to address the issue of moderators who simply give the site a bad name by being so intimately associated with it, rather than those who misuse the mod system... maybe just not allow members who are or ever have been banned for their own conduct to buy into the program? Alan Hall, Neil Gubitz, Jesse Underhill, Anaconda Al, Wes, Dave Lawson... and so on. If they were kicked off because they were unable or unwilling to maintain the standards of behavior that had been set before them, that's a pretty clear indicator that they are someone you should not want representing your site or yourself. Tying into the first question slightly of "Would you allow a moderator who got themselves incrementally banned to return to moderator status if they paid their re-entry fee?" I am sincerely hoping the answer is "No."

Hrm.

Bump? I guess... Kinda looking for a response to the last post, especially the last paragraph.

The closest answer to what I was thinking was its getting better. I do think a change or 2 could be made buts thats me. The biggest complaint I see is not necessarily that ANYONE can buy in but WHO is buying in. Its kinda like anything else , you're only as strong as your weakest link , regardless of WHO that link is.

As the Jr. Mods get more comfy in their role it will improve. The members don't see the amount of policing we do to our ranks since they aren't privy to that forum but we do police ourselves. This program is still in its infancy and more time is needed to really see how its going to work out.

I'll jump in Seamus and say that for the most part I agree that those who manage to get themselves banned don't seem to have the best interest of the site in mind.

I've not been around here much the last month or so was away for almost two weeks and real busy here since I got back . So I've been catching up on some of what has been happening on Fauna while I was away.

I notice that many keep going on about the pay to warn or UN troops as I call them. Seems to be the same old arguments for the most part though Dave joining the ranks seems to have given the nay sayers new ammo.

Pay to warn seems to be Rich's baby at the moment and isn't all that bad an idea though a way to keep out the riff raf would be an idea but how do you do that? How does Rich say JimO I'll take your money and welcome aboard and say gee Dave no thanks??

I'll join Seamus, Griz and others with a few of my thoughts on this and expound on an idea that Alan mentioned above. A way to separate those that want to be able to hand out Warnings from those that want to just give Rich some bucks to help out. A different color coin for one would be nice that way everyone knows who they are and gee may be a word or two to identify them I still like UN for some reason lol

How to weed them out ?? well Rich could let it be known that he will pick from those who pay a 100 bucks or more or just set it up so that each has a trial period and can have their status taken away for cause. As long as these things are known up front no one has a reason to complain if they are dismissed for cause and those who don't want to be UN troops don't have to be bothered they can just give their support and not have the special colored coin and the word or two... If nothing else there needs to be a better way to identify who these folks are..

Gee would a known bad guy or someone with a piss poor Reputation spend a hundred bucks on the off chance they'd be allowed to hand out warnings when they are not sure they will be allowed too? Just my thoughts ...Randy

ravensgait said:

I'll jump in Seamus and say that for the most part I agree that those who manage to get themselves banned don't seem to have the best interest of the site in mind.

I've not been around here much the last month or so was away for almost two weeks and real busy here since I got back . So I've been catching up on some of what has been happening on Fauna while I was away.

I notice that many keep going on about the pay to warn or UN troops as I call them. Seems to be the same old arguments for the most part though Dave joining the ranks seems to have given the nay sayers new ammo.

Pay to warn seems to be Rich's baby at the moment and isn't all that bad an idea though a way to keep out the riff raf would be an idea but how do you do that? How does Rich say JimO I'll take your money and welcome aboard and say gee Dave no thanks??

I'll join Seamus, Griz and others with a few of my thoughts on this and expound on an idea that Alan mentioned above. A way to separate those that want to be able to hand out Warnings from those that want to just give Rich some bucks to help out. A different color coin for one would be nice that way everyone knows who they are and gee may be a word or two to identify them I still like UN for some reason lol

How to weed them out ?? well Rich could let it be known that he will pick from those who pay a 100 bucks or more or just set it up so that each has a trial period and can have their status taken away for cause. As long as these things are known up front no one has a reason to complain if they are dismissed for cause and those who don't want to be UN troops don't have to be bothered they can just give their support and not have the special colored coin and the word or two... If nothing else there needs to be a better way to identify who these folks are..

Gee would a known bad guy or someone with a piss poor Reputation spend a hundred bucks on the off chance they'd be allowed to hand out warnings when they are not sure they will be allowed too? Just my thoughts ...Randy

Click to expand...

Well, my approach is somewhat different. ALL of the mods (myself included) can evict someone from this program if they prove to be more of a problem than in helping out as a WS mod. It was designed that way for a purpose. I just got damned tired of being blasted for every attempt to enforce the rules I make, so the decision making for THIS sort of problem was spread out over everyone else in this program. At the initiation of the program, I didn't know what to expect in the way of abuse, so I played it somewhat cautiously with the ability of a small group of WS mods causing problems for both regular members and the other WS mods who they might have personal issues with. Personal issues were expected, so I had to try to limit the damage that such issues could cause before anyone could react to it.

After a few months of running, I did some fine tuning based on what I have seen so far. There wasn't as much abuse as I thought potentially might take place, so the level required to get someone suspended was reduced, and the level of the point hit for abuse of a WS mod was strengthened. I would have made the tripwire even lower than I did, but one member would have been suspended immediately had I done that, which I didn't think would have been fair.

The COST of taking part in this program was made higher than some people would have liked on purpose. It was firstly to limit participation to those people who had a significant incentive to do so. I didn't want just anyone taking part and figuring $25 is cheap for the fun they could have causing me even more headaches as they gleefully abused he powers they had received. Yeah maybe some would be willing to spend $100 for that pleasure, but certainly not nearly as many had that hurdle been much lower. Sorry, but NO one is going to convince me that this would not have taken place.

And in like kind, anyone paying that higher fee to participate within this program also risks losing it if they abuse the powers they take on and utilize in an abusive manner. On top of losing that $100 membership fee (I assume anyone intent on just using the system to cause problems would not spring for the $250 membership), they would also lose ALL privileges to come to this site without paying the $50 fine such abuse will cause them. So yes, I specifically made this program such that the entry fee is stiff, and the penalty for abusing it is stiff as well.

But as I mentioned, designed into it was the capability that all members participating be self policing. If you all allow another WS mod to abuse the system, then I will just assume that is the way you all want it to be.