On Transparency

[dong20]

Dong20--you missed the explanation that Mindseye noted. I will quote it here:
.......
(*But we don't restrict moderators from disclosing their own private conversations)

No, actually I didn't miss it. My comment related to the inclusion of other members names in that disclosure and because the message was sent to you not by you. I did say it was exceptional - My bold:

"As, I think was the publication of PM's in 'that' thread, by both Moderators and members. I know that was somewhat exceptional but publishing PM's with 3rd parties names in, by Moderators, (whether they were posting as a member or not) to score points seems at least to me in some conflict with your opening statement:"

And for the record, speaking as myself, I will say that I posted those PMs to prove that someone was misrepresenting the truth and lying. Plain and simple.

I know you did, which is why I said "...it was somewhat exceptional...". You and I just have differing views on the privacy of private messages is all. Hence my earlier question to you about the lack thereof being mentioned in the TOS. It's no big deal and I don't want to get into fight about it. But I stand by my observation.:smile:

 

[Gillette]

Why shouldn't the members of an organisation have a say in banning members of that organisation? After all isn't any 'democratic and open' organisation is only as good as, and thus responsible to its membership? Without its members LPSG is nothing.

If this board is being run for the benefit of the Moderators and its owner that's one thing and one set of rules, but if it's intended to be run for the benefit of its members shouldn't they have some say in that running?

Just a thought.:smile:

We do have have some say in the running of the site. When Rob changed the screen configuration we all had plenty to say about it, and, lo and behold, it has been restored. It may not be permanent but it shows that our voices were heard.

We also have some say in who gets banned, we have the "!" button to call attention to posts that are abusive. That is, in a sense, our voting privilege. If this is pressed in response to a particular poster it with bring moderator scrutiny to bear on that person's behavior.

What I had meant, though not presented as concisely as it could have been, was that once the decision is made, determined by the terms of service, to ban someone, that it is not our place to cry foul and have them reinstated.
Popularity does not excuse violation of the ToS.

Speaking of the ToS, I've yet to read them, though I should. I've just been muddling along with the hope that I will feel a slap on my wrist before I feel a boot in my ass.

P.S. I so wish you would teach me how to quote from multiple posts in the same reply as I've seen you do in other threads. If I knew how to do that then I wouldn't have to do this...

 

[Gillette]

I read his proposed solution, and think it's a bit indelicate. How would you address this (real) situation that we've dealt with before? (I've changed the names

Fred is a long-time member of LPSG, much loved and respected by other members. In order to discuss a controversial and potentially embarrassing personal issue, Fred creates a multiple account, Tom. When LPSG members respond negatively to Tom's disturbing fetish, Tom gets defensive and starts lashing out, which is how the multiple account came to our attention.

Under Alex8's proposal, we should post an announcement that says "Fred has been banned permanently for holding multiple accounts as Fred and Tom." To do so would link Tom's fetish to Fred, which is exactly the invasion of privacy Fred was hoping to avoid. I don't want to compound the administrative banning with a public humiliation for Fred.

I would address it as Fred being booted for multiple accounts and Tom being booted for abusive behavior.

 

[mindseye]

I guess I would have to say that makes sense.

Thanks.

Let me point out that we've never stopped a member from posting a public grievance on their own administrative actions. Last month, for example, Stronzo initiated a thread to allege that a warning we had sent to him was motivated out of bias. Even if a member is banned from posting, we've allowed that member to post a 'farewell rebuttal' through another account: Freddie53 did so for DoubleMeatWhopper, for example.

It may be the case later on, that Spladle or Stronzo or Pichulon would want to initiate a discussion about what happened, and they can waive their own confidentiality.

 

[GoneA]

Again, some accountablility or transparency in the banning process would help avoid sudden, unexplained 'disappearences'.

Agreed. Some degree of "transparency" is certainly needed, but, where you and I differ in opinion is to whom accountability must be held. Should it be the indvidual user or the board at large? I would like to think both, but to different degrees for each. I feel the banned user deserves thorough explaination of why they are banned - just recently, we've been informed that a particular user doesn't know why he's been banned at all. That gives off a rather eerie feeling.

How should the moderating team act in terms of accoutability to the entire board? To answer that question, just as users deserve transparency from administration, administration reserves the right to retain a degree of confidentiality. It's only fair. I think Alex8 presented and excellent solution: the 'sin bin' - I just think it should be orchestrated a little differently. Consider one of his examples:

• alex7 has been temporarily banned for fourteen days for anti-social behavior.

...while I can't say there's actually something "wrong" with this (in fact, just to reiterate, I think it's an excellent solution), the moderating team should maintain a level of confidentiality and, to that end, the explaination should go soemthing like:

• alex7 has been temporarily banned for fourteen days.

When alex7 returns, if he wished to divulge that information to his friends (or enemies, even) on LPSG, then so be it. However, if he feels no one should be made knowledgeable of that information, then one will simply not know. You brought to the light the idea of one being an adult and taking one's medicine - and I absolutely agree. However, it flows equally both ways in that one must also be mature enough to handle denial of information in the interest of privacy.

Furthermore, I actually don't feel the same way when one is banned permanently. This type of banning is a very weighty issue and I feel a more indepth explantion should be given to the board - perhaps Rob_E could place that reason in the user's profile. Then perhaps this:

• alex7 has been permanently (changed from "temporarily") banned for fourteen days for anti-social behavior.

or

• LickMyClit has been permanently banned for holding multiple accounts as LickMyClit, LickMyPussy and LickMyToes.

... would be better suited.

 

[D_Martin van Burden]

Under Alex8's proposal, we should post an announcement that says "Fred has been banned permanently for holding multiple accounts...

Stop the information where I've placed the ellipsis since that's all we're concerned with hearing. Fred did himself the disservice of trying to manage multiple accounts. And if he's that concerned with addressing a sexual fetish that might cause him some embarrassment, he always had the option of not mentioning it in the place. Harsh, perhaps, but I would assume LPSG would be supportive enough in its entirety to make his fetish into an interesting conversation piece, trolls notwithstanding.

 

[dong20]

We do have have some say in the running of the site. When Rob changed the screen configuration we all had plenty to say about it, and, lo and behold, it has been restored. It may not be permanent but it shows that our voices were heard.

I know, I was just thinking out loud since the question was asked.

P.S. I so wish you would teach me how to quote from multiple posts in the same reply as I've seen you do in other threads. If I knew how to do that then I wouldn't have to do this...

Can I PM you to explain that? It's easy but rather boring and boredom is the last thing LPSG needs right now.....:biggrin1:

 

[Gillette]

...although, Gillette, you have to take into account that Stronzo, Spladle and Pichulon might not want people to know why they were banned. Do you see how that could make one fee 'awkward' when they returned?

I do, however, think that whether the ban is temporary or permanent should be indicated ... and for how long.

Totally agree that the length of the ban should be disclosed.

As to the shame factor, GOOD!!!, it can act as a deterrent to members who may follow in their footsteps otherwise. We are adults here and if we are going to make our beds a particular way we can lie in it too.

*Double entendre not intended

 

[Gillette]

Agreed. Some degree of "transparency" is certainly needed, but, where you and I differ in opinion is to whom accountability must be held. Should it be the indvidual user or the board at large? I would like to think both, but to different degrees for each. I feel the banned user deserves thorough explaination of why they are banned - just recently, we've been informed that a particular user doesn't know why he's been banned at all. That gives off a rather eerie feeling.

How should the moderating team act in terms of accoutability to the entire board? To answer that question, just as users deserve transparency from administration, administration reserves the right to retain a degree of confidentiality. It's only fair. I think Alex8 presented and excellent solution: the 'sin bin' - I just think it should be orchestrated a little differently. Consider one of his examples:

• alex7 has been temporarily banned for fourteen days for anti-social behavior.

...while I can't say there's actually something "wrong" with this (in fact, just to reiterate, I think it's an excellent solution), the moderating team should maintain a level of confidentiality and, to that end, the explaination should go soemthing like:

• alex7 has been temporarily banned for fourteen days.

When alex7 returns, if he wished to divulge that information to his friends (or enemies, even) on LPSG, then so be it. However, if he feels no one should be made knowledgeable of that information, then one will simply not know. You brought to the light the idea of one being an adult and taking one's medicine - and I absolutely agree. However, it flows equally both ways in that one must also be mature enough to handle denial of information in the interest of privacy.

Furthermore, I actually don't feel the same way when one is banned permanently. This type of banning is a very weighty issue and I feel a more indepth explantion should be given to the board - perhaps Rob_E could place that reason in the user's profile. Then perhaps this:

• alex7 has been permanently (changed from "temporarily") banned for fourteen days for anti-social behavior.

or

• LickMyClit has been permanently banned for holding multiple accounts as LickMyClit, LickMyPussy and LickMyToes.

... would be better suited.

I do actually like this suggestion very much. This seems workable.

 

[dong20]

Agreed. Some degree of "transparency" is certainly needed, but, where you and I differ in opinion is to whom accountability must be held. Should it be the indvidual user or the board at large? I would like to think both, but to different degrees for each. I feel the banned user deserves thorough explaination of why they are banned - just recently, we've been informed that a particular user doesn't know why he's been banned at all. That gives off a rather eerie feeling.

It's all a question of degrees I suppose. That part of my post was really aimed at addressing your last two sentences.

.... I just think it should be orchestrated a little differently. Consider one of his examples:

• alex7 has been temporarily banned for fourteen days for anti-social behavior.

V

• alex7 has been temporarily banned for fourteen days.

When alex7 returns, if he wished to divulge that information to his friends (or enemies, even) on LPSG, then so be it. However, if he feels no one should be made knowledgeable of that information, then one will simply not know. You brought to the light the idea of one being an adult and taking one's medicine - and I absolutely agree. However, it flows equally both ways in that one must also be mature enough to handle denial of information in the interest of privacy.

Sure, in terms of temporary bans I could agree with that provided there was confidence in the impartiality of the process leading to the ban; as in not allowing:

alex7 has been temporarily banned for fourteen days (because he happened to piss off Mods A, B and C this week on some trivial and/or personal issue)

I'm not suggesting that is, has been or would be the case but as we are exploring 'ideas' here I think it's a valid observation.

Furthermore, I actually don't feel the same way when one is banned permanently. This type of banning is a very weighty issue and I feel a more indepth explantion should be given to the board - perhaps Rob_E could place that reason in the user's profile. Then perhaps this:

• alex7 has been permanently (changed from "temporarily") banned for fourteen days for anti-social behavior.

or

• LickMyClit has been permanently banned for holding multiple accounts as LickMyClit, LickMyPussy and LickMyToes.

... would be better suited.

I agree, and on permanent bans I think some greater degree of membership involvent could be justified. But that's not my/our call, as we have been told.
In the final analysis, if the board doesn't suit, one should deal with it or move on. As I said for the most part I have no deeply held complaints but that doesn't mean I don't have deeply held opinions.:biggrin1:

 

[Lex]

On another note: when a member is banned, there is a reason listed. The Moderator Team has, up until now, assumed that this reason is what the member sees when they try to log onto the site. I am planning to test this to see if it works or not.

We sent a message to each of the members explaining the reason for the ban and the length of the ban (we do this with every ban). I just tested this functionality and there appears to be a problem with the board code. Thus, members have not been receiving notifications of a ban (along with terms) when they attempt to log in the site.

I will report this to Rob_E.

 

[GoneA]

'Ya know dong, I don't think we disagree really at all.

 

[Shelby]

It kills me that people take this shit seriously.

What the fuck?
​

 

[Lex]

...
Sure, in terms of temporary bans I could agree with that provided there was confidence in the impartiality of the process leading to the ban; as in not allowing:

alex7 has been temporarily banned for fourteen days (because he happened to piss off Mods A, B and C this week on some trivial and/or personal issue)

I'm not suggesting that is, has been or would be the case but as we are exploring 'ideas' her I think it's a valid observation.

Bans (and most warnings not covered in the TOS) require a simple majority of Moderators on duty that week ( I know Mindseye has mentioned this before in another thread). With the exception of underaged members and spammers, bans are typically deliberated over the course of several days (at least 3, and sometimes over a week) in order to allow all Moderators an opportunity to discuss and add input.

No one has ever been banned for pissing us off (nor will they be) and no one has been banned without at least six or more Moderators (when our base was 10) affirming the action.

 

[dong20]

Bans (and most warnings not covered in the TOS) require a simple majority of Moderators on duty that week ( I know Mindseye has mentioned this before in another thread). With the exception of underaged members and spammers, bans are typically deliberated over the course of several days (at least 3, and sometimes over a week) in order to allow all Moderators an opportunity to discuss and add input.

No one has ever been banned for pissing us off (nor will they be) and no one has been banned without at least six or more Moderators (when our base was 10) affirming the action.

I'm sure that's the case, I did say that in my post but thanks for confirming for us all. I only used the example by way of illustration not accusation.:smile:

 

[JustAsking]

Listen, guys, argue as you may, the site is moderated.

Giving the members a 'say' in who gets banned requires only that Rob_E appoint a single button pusher who does the members' bidding. As you can see from today's posts alone, opinions are too varied and feelings are too strong on either side of an issue for that to work.

No, mob rule is just the opposite side of a bad coin from a dictatorship. Moderators are like congressmen. We appoint or elect them to make decisions in our behalf, because they have access to more information and understand the process better. They might be very wrong sometimes but hopefully they are very frequently right and hopefully they represent their constituents with reasonable accuracy.

There is a saying about democracy. "Democracy is the worst form of government there is, except for all the others."

I understand this ban to be temporary, right? The board is a much more interesting place with Stronzo and the others. They are very interesting people with passionate and thought provoking ideas. So I hope they are back soon. But I have to respect the process, since having none might be worse.

 

[novice_btm]

With the banning, and reasons, the multiple account of Joe, Tom, John, or whoever, shouldn't be an issue. That is:

Joe: banned - multiple accounts (NO listing of which accounts)
Mary: banned - trollism
Tom: banned - multiple accounts
Elaine: banned - racism
Billy: banned - underage user
John: banned - multiple accounts
oh, and while were at it
George: banned - fake/stolen pix!

JUST put a standard reason, with no expansion. COULD people put it together? Maybe. But who's to say they haven't already.

 

[alien51]

reprimanding the offenders of the rules,by banning them for certain periods of time or permanently....hmmm...who should be privy to the reasons?admin?moderators?the offenders for sure,but do we really need to know?perhaps a plan whereby a class system of sorts is developed,i.e.,bronze members may read only and not post,silver members may read,post,andview certain areas,whereby the all powerful and mighty GOLD members may even be able to be randomly selected to vote on the banning(or warning)process.all of these level would be at different cost levels.feedback please,alien

 

[Shelby]

I'm beginning a fresh thread for this, because I think it deserves a separate topic. My comments here are my own; I'm not speaking in an official capacity (In fact, I will always indicate when I am speaking in an official capacity.)

A member offered this criticism of the board leadership, which I've excerpted for brevity:


Rob took over LPSG in December 2005, and appointed his first set of moderators on February 25, 2006. The faked death of DoubleMeatWhopper took place just two weeks earlier, and that story had been unravelling in the meantime.

As moderators, we had access to information, such as IP logs, that made the 'unravelling' process much easier. Within a few days, we knew what was going on, down to DMW's real-life name, address, and phone number. We even had a recent photograph of him that we found on an unrelated website. One of the first tasks we had as a moderating team was to decide how much, if any, of this information to share.

The decision we made was this: we will not share behind-the-scenes information. This is a promise that we make that your online privacy, your identity, your private messages* will not be violated by us. Consider it our 'prime directive', if you're a Star Trek fan.

What this means, is that we're willing to discuss issues like, "Why does the TOS allow X but not Y?" and "Should a decision to do X require a simple majority vote, or something stronger like 2/3 or a unanimous consent?" What we're not willing to discuss are questions about specific cases like "Why did you ban X?"

Feel free to use this thread to discuss ways to improve the TOS (which is a work in progress that needs improvement), or to criticize our prime directive if you'd rather.

_____________________________________

*But we don't restrict moderators from disclosing their own private conversations.

I just know I'm glad I'm not responsible to Rob or any of the rest of you fuckers.


Get Smart ...


Chaos vs Control


your vote?

 

[mindseye]

Shelby:

You've made it clear that you don't take this seriously through your flippant posts.. Other people do take this seriously, however, and at least two people have openly considered leaving LPSG over this. I respected those people enough to give them an honest response, and I don't appreciate you mocking me for having done so.