Moderators (requests and notices)

Who here doesn't find someone boring on here?

That's a terrible criteria for demanding a ban.>

Yes, that was a poor / vague choice of words on my part. To clarify: sexism is boring. If fewer women use the site because of it, the site becomes more boring. If threads are derailed by trolling and discussion grinds to a halt, that's boring. I think you have found the best solution in making Bothwell and hats mods of that part of the forum, so trebles all round.

I just ate chips and gravy. Nom.

I just deleted a shitty post by @ABCNews in the ladies subforum because it was a shitty thing to post and not the kind of contribution welcome in the ladies subform, and also because I apparently can.

You've already gone mad with power.

Might ban everybody from posting in the helmets thread next.

"Il potere logora chi non ce l'ha"

For what it's worth, I'm still miffed at Ed (who is, let's face it, guilty of a hell of a lot of white knight-ing in the Ladies subforum) nominating Bothwell and I, and @Velocio deciding to act on it without checking with us whether we were ok with that.

Saying you'll take it away if we don't like it isn't the same as asking us beforehand. Much the same as making an offensive comment and removing it if people complain isn't the same as thinking about whether something might cause offence to begin with.

If you'd asked me if I wanted to be a moderator, I could have told you. You didn't, and you knew I was unhappy about that and you didn't bother apologising. I have to say I'm disappointed.

Like I said, I thought he would have consulted you two about it.

Apologise, putting the ladies forum on ignore now.

but hats, can't you just ignore your 'powers' and carry on like a normal user of the site? There's surely no obligation for you to behave any differently if you don't want to.

That is entirely missing the point, I think.

http://www.lfgss.com/profiles/90793/
Spam

If the basic aim of a troll is to spread discord within a community, then abcuntnews is a pretty successful troll.

I'm still wtf that being obviously sexist in the ladies forum isn't enough to at least get you banned from the ladies forum.

@Velocio

I thought the nursery was back, just wondering how this one slipped through.

I'm sorry, I apologise.

Though it's still not clear to me whether you want to be a mod. If not do let me know and I'll remove that status.

I thought he would have consulted you two about it.

I consult no-one. I do not have the luxury of time, so I act decisively. Mostly this works out better than consulting anyone, occasionally I find I trip over my own feet and end up face-planting myself on the floor. Which it appears I've done on this occasion.

I'm still wtf that being obviously sexist in the ladies forum isn't enough to at least get you banned from the ladies forum.

I am not a mod of the ladies forum, and don't overrule the mods there.

If I am asked to ban, I mostly consider it to be a site-wide ban unless it's clear that a forum-only ban is obviously more suitable.

But in the case of ABCNews, I almost tore my hair out in frustration over the fact that not one fucking person was willing to question whether the post was fine and the motive behind making the post before I was hit with the steady stream of posts in this thread.

I thought the nursery was back, just wondering how this one slipped through.

The nursery is not back, has not been brought back, I've made no statements that should lead you to think it had been.

Effectively, I'll re-enable some form of nursery.

was what i was thinking of

not one fucking person was willing to question whether the post was fine and the motive behind making the post

I don't think anyone but you cares what the motive of the post was.

I understand some of your frustration, though I do though think there is an issue that reporting offensive content is not as clear a process any more so can see why the barrage of comments in this thread happened.

was what i was thinking of

An intent is a future thing. Right now, I'm not working on Microcosm code. So it hasn't yet been done.

An intent to do something, and saying that I will do something, does not move it immediately into a "done" state.

It has always been the case that subjective shit should be called out, and challenged.

I ban the non-subjective stuff, but have always needed clear indication that a ban is justified when it's subjective.

Not having a report button has not changed that.

I'm not sure anyone wants me to be banning people for subjective stuff without first obtaining evidence that the person to be banned was informed of the risk, challenged, etc... and then continued to do whatever it was that got them into trouble. At that point I'm happy to ban instantly and without warning.

But as I keep saying, I'm not a peacemaker, a negotiator. You call me in to come and nuke someone. I'm happy to nuke, you only need to show me that it's justified and I'll do it. In this case, no-one did that... people just expected the nuke.

I have reflected upon this overnight and recalled that I also use this precise model when determining Who Should Be Mod. I also recall that I've never asked anybody if they'd like to be one, just given them permissions on the basis that they can choose to Moderate or Not Moderate as they see fit, with no real expectations of them beyond expecting them to behave in a reasonable manner (which would be a given, as they'd have been chosen for that quality). So I do understand the thinking behind this, and the only reason this occasion is different is because it's somewhat politically charged (and I'd still have preferred to have been asked first).

I'm still wtf that being obviously sexist in the ladies forum isn't enough to at least get you banned from the ladies forum.

I did initially do this for all of five seconds and then recanted because I felt that a revenge-banning would be unproductive.

He has offered me a heartfelt apology that follows the 3-part model of a "proper apology": http://www.forbes.com/sites/sungardas/2014/03/13/how-to-apologize-the-right-way-an-apology-actually-has-three-parts/ which you can view in context for yourselves here if you want to see how an actual apology is really done: http://www.lfgss.com/comments/11963958/

From this I think it's clear that he can become a well-adjusted and reasonable individual as he obviously has a good understanding of what he did wrong and how to fix it.

Similarly, I'm sure that his failure to remove his own post in the ladies subforum and me needing to remove it for him was just an oversight. I mean what civilised person hasn't deliberately dropped a giant steaming turd right in somebody's living room and then accidentally not cleaned it up after being asked to several times by the upset hosts?

Though it's still not clear to me whether you want to be a mod

I'm sure that his failure to remove his own post in the ladies subforum and me needing to remove it for him was just an oversight.

Well, users can't actually remove their own posts.