Darth

When Politics started, I championed the moderation threads. I sent private email to Eric and even spoke with him on the phone. So to an extent this thread is part of Erics answer.

To an extent, The "problem" has existed for a very long time. It goes the point that Matt washed his hands of forums and his vote was to close them. A Group of moderators was formed in an attempt stop the problem... Still during this time there are many posters that have no issues only a group that felt they should be able to say/do anything at anytime. When they did they were moderated.
They have continued to the point that the largest number of people within Seti have been banned for not following rules. One of Eric Statements was a Ban might be more appropiate early than later... Well it is now later, those that want/desire to cause issues failed to heed the warning.

So in all this we have a group of people that feel their statements are more important that others. Even though they were judged as being as being incorrect by 12 moderators (that is the count now 12 moderators).

So now Eric has added more moderators to the team of moderators, which were partly the choosing of the "users." They are still finding that a small number of people are saying things which need to be moderated and in some cases to be banned.

If you want we can break out each rule one at a time and work on understanding them. We can do that.

You you point to the Problem, I can and others can amplify what is seen.

What can you say about how to solve the problem? That is what has been missing. Most just say follow the rules... They hae made many intereptations about all anyone has to do is follow the rules.

The problem is that the "few" have been growing larger all the time, and I'm not even referring to those who have formed outside collectives. When added all together, that makes for a sizable minority. There is something more wrong here than meets the eye, and some people don't want to admit to it; otherwise, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

---

Please consider a Donation to the Seti Project.

Sirius B

There have been times where the moderators saw something and either pm'd the person and explained what was wrong. If the user was still there and within the hour edited the post things were fine. In some cases users have had the post hidden and an explaination of what to remove to allow a repost. Many users have worked with the moderators and now have a better idea of what went wrong. Those posts are not hidden.

Many new tools have been created to allow the moderators to help users. For myself, I appreciate the added flexibility of those tools.

If you have a doubt you are always welcome to email
Setimods at ssl.berkeley.edu
replace the at with the @ symbol...

Actually, you may not know what the rules of the road are. Some are pretty obscure. But even if you don't know a particular rule/law, you can be punished by the judge. Also, you may think what you have done is not a violation of a law or rule, but if the judge disagrees with you (meaning the Judge agrees with the Cop who gave you the ticket), you will still be fined. It's the judge who decides what the law says or the rule means, not the person who was ticketed.

The same principles apply to posting here. If you don't know the rules, or if you think you are within the rule, you may still be moderated or even banned, no matter how much you believe you are right. You can always appeal to the modlist, and your position will be discussed (and sometimes the moderators will even agree with you--it has happened), but if the moderators find you to be wrong, your post will remain hidden and repeating such behaviour may result in a ban.

Thanks Qui-Gon, that was the principle I was trying to state. However you have raised one point that may need clarifying - What if the poster was genuine & was unaware (asides from the obvious rules), will they be notified of their error to prevent them making the same mistake which may lead to a ban?

---

Please consider a Donation to the Seti Project.

Well remember our drama began by you picking up me?

I didn't pick on you! I simply offered an opinion or counter point to something you said.

The problem and the answer all wraped up in a nice little nutshell... ;)

(I don't agree with you, so stop picking on me! lol)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

...and other issues on moderation policy.

I still wonder why someone gets banned who points out bullying, and another one gets banned for making clear that a post brought up as a lame excuse was nothing more than just that: a lame excuse to justify the bullies.

Dear Eric, Have your 2, 3 Uber-bullies told you who is to be considered as one of the evil ones and who is to be banned? Do you really think these 2, 3 can be trusted more than those who have been moderated/demodded/banned because they spoke up against them??
When so many on the boards complain, this can't be just excused by "hidden agenda". Of course: when bullies are called bullies, they will - instead of admitting it - rather claim to have been annoyed, antagonized or insulted and want to get rid of the accuser by all costs, as can be seen here daily.

I know, to you the project has priority over the board. - But is money really influencing your judgment so much more than the common sense? Are donations really more important than a peaceful board? I hope that's not the case.

---

Account frozen...

Darth

When Politics started, I championed the moderation threads. I sent private email to Eric and even spoke with him on the phone. So to an extent this thread is part of Erics answer.

To an extent, The "problem" has existed for a very long time. It goes the point that Matt washed his hands of forums and his vote was to close them. A Group of moderators was formed in an attempt stop the problem... Still during this time there are many posters that have no issues only a group that felt they should be able to say/do anything at anytime. When they did they were moderated.
They have continued to the point that the largest number of people within Seti have been banned for not following rules. One of Eric Statements was a Ban might be more appropiate early than later... Well it is now later, those that want/desire to cause issues failed to heed the warning.

So in all this we have a group of people that feel their statements are more important that others. Even though they were judged as being as being incorrect by 12 moderators (that is the count now 12 moderators).

So now Eric has added more moderators to the team of moderators, which were partly the choosing of the "users." They are still finding that a small number of people are saying things which need to be moderated and in some cases to be banned.

If you want we can break out each rule one at a time and work on understanding them. We can do that.

You you point to the Problem, I can and others can amplify what is seen.

What can you say about how to solve the problem? That is what has been missing. Most just say follow the rules... They hae made many intereptations about all anyone has to do is follow the rules.

The problem is that the "few" have been growing larger all the time, and I'm not even referring to those who have formed outside collectives. When added all together, that makes for a sizable minority. There is something more wrong here than meets the eye, and some people don't want to admit to it; otherwise, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

I was considering answering your post line for line...somethings I agree with you, on others I see things differently for various reasons. But I have decided to cut to the chase, in one word, transparency. Anonymity of actions and hiding behind a wall creates a situation of distrust, not only here, but in any group dynamic. IMO, herein lies the main problem, no matter how hard people are dancing around the various issues, that is the crux of the situation.

---

Account frozen...

I was considering answering your post line for line...somethings I agree with you, on others I see things differently for various reasons. But I have decided to cut to the chase, in one word, transparency. Anonymity of actions and hiding behind a wall creates a situation of distrust, not only here, but in any group dynamic. IMO, herein lies the main problem, no matter how hard people are dancing around the various issues, that is the crux of the situation.

There is a problem with transparency. That means leaving the post out for all to see, when the point is that the post does not follow the rules and needs to be hidden.

The person that has a post moderated is told what was done, why it was done, and who did it. This is about as transparent as we can get and still have moderation.

---

BOINC WIKI

...and other issues on moderation policy.

I still wonder why someone gets banned who points out bullying, and another one gets banned for making clear that a post brought up as a lame excuse was nothing more than just that: a lame excuse to justify the bullies.

Dear Eric, Have your 2, 3 Uber-bullies told you who is to be considered as one of the evil ones and who is to be banned? Do you really think these 2, 3 can be trusted more than those who have been moderated/demodded/banned because they spoke up against them??
When so many on the boards complain, this can't be just excused by "hidden agenda". Of course: when bullies are called bullies, they will - instead of admitting it - rather claim to have been annoyed, antagonized or insulted and want to get rid of the accuser by all costs, as can be seen here daily.

I know, to you the project has priority over the board. - But is money really influencing your judgment so much more than the common sense? Are donations really more important than a peaceful board? I hope that's not the case.

You do not know why any of these people were banished. I am not at liberty to discuss why, but none of the reasons given by you were the reason for the ban.

---

BOINC WIKI

I was considering answering your post line for line...somethings I agree with you, on others I see things differently for various reasons. But I have decided to cut to the chase, in one word, transparency. Anonymity of actions and hiding behind a wall creates a situation of distrust, not only here, but in any group dynamic. IMO, herein lies the main problem, no matter how hard people are dancing around the various issues, that is the crux of the situation.

There is a problem with transparency. That means leaving the post out for all to see, when the point is that the post does not follow the rules and needs to be hidden.

The person that has a post moderated is told what was done, why it was done, and who did it. This is about as transparent as we can get and still have moderation.

Then until a solution is found, and compromises made, the situation will in all likelihood continue, which is something no one wants.

---

Account frozen...

At times you and I have agreed on some things. What bothers me that by pushing the issue is not going to resolve it.

The rules are the whole issue. If the group goes to following the rules then it becomes moot.

I was considering answering your post line for line...somethings I agree with you, on others I see things differently for various reasons. But I have decided to cut to the chase, in one word, transparency. Anonymity of actions and hiding behind a wall creates a situation of distrust, not only here, but in any group dynamic. IMO, herein lies the main problem, no matter how hard people are dancing around the various issues, that is the crux of the situation.

There is a problem with transparency. That means leaving the post out for all to see, when the point is that the post does not follow the rules and needs to be hidden.

The person that has a post moderated is told what was done, why it was done, and who did it. This is about as transparent as we can get and still have moderation.

Then until a solution is found, and compromises made, the situation will in all likelihood continue, which is something no one wants.

---

Please consider a Donation to the Seti Project.

At times you and I have agreed on some things. What bothers me that by pushing the issue is not going to resolve it.

The rules are the whole issue. If the group goes to following the rules then it becomes moot.

I was considering answering your post line for line...somethings I agree with you, on others I see things differently for various reasons. But I have decided to cut to the chase, in one word, transparency. Anonymity of actions and hiding behind a wall creates a situation of distrust, not only here, but in any group dynamic. IMO, herein lies the main problem, no matter how hard people are dancing around the various issues, that is the crux of the situation.

There is a problem with transparency. That means leaving the post out for all to see, when the point is that the post does not follow the rules and needs to be hidden.

The person that has a post moderated is told what was done, why it was done, and who did it. This is about as transparent as we can get and still have moderation.

Then until a solution is found, and compromises made, the situation will in all likelihood continue, which is something no one wants.

Agreed, one would assume that means the all the mods as well.

---

Account frozen...

I like how you put emphasis on this...

So you are asking if all mods agree that if the group that has been somewhat disruptive in the past.. would be left alone. While as I have not asked for a consenus of all the mods as this "potential truce" comes rather quickly. I am fairly certain that the moderators as a group can agree to let users post and have fun.

So can we have the same assurances from your side...

At times you and I have agreed on some things. What bothers me that by pushing the issue is not going to resolve it.

The rules are the whole issue. If the group goes to following the rules then it becomes moot.

I was considering answering your post line for line...somethings I agree with you, on others I see things differently for various reasons. But I have decided to cut to the chase, in one word, transparency. Anonymity of actions and hiding behind a wall creates a situation of distrust, not only here, but in any group dynamic. IMO, herein lies the main problem, no matter how hard people are dancing around the various issues, that is the crux of the situation.

There is a problem with transparency. That means leaving the post out for all to see, when the point is that the post does not follow the rules and needs to be hidden.

The person that has a post moderated is told what was done, why it was done, and who did it. This is about as transparent as we can get and still have moderation.

Then until a solution is found, and compromises made, the situation will in all likelihood continue, which is something no one wants.

Agreed, one would assume that means the all the mods as well.

---

Please consider a Donation to the Seti Project.

...and other issues on moderation policy.

I still wonder why someone gets banned who points out bullying, and another one gets banned for making clear that a post brought up as a lame excuse was nothing more than just that: a lame excuse to justify the bullies.

Dear Eric, Have your 2, 3 Uber-bullies told you who is to be considered as one of the evil ones and who is to be banned? Do you really think these 2, 3 can be trusted more than those who have been moderated/demodded/banned because they spoke up against them??
When so many on the boards complain, this can't be just excused by "hidden agenda". Of course: when bullies are called bullies, they will - instead of admitting it - rather claim to have been annoyed, antagonized or insulted and want to get rid of the accuser by all costs, as can be seen here daily.

I know, to you the project has priority over the board. - But is money really influencing your judgment so much more than the common sense? Are donations really more important than a peaceful board? I hope that's not the case.

You do not know why any of these people were banished. I am not at liberty to discuss why, but none of the reasons given by you were the reason for the ban.

I think there can be transparency without having the offending post visible.

1) If a post is hidden, it should be replaced in situ with the name of the mod who did the hiding, and the specific rule violated.

2) If a user is banned, the mod who requested the ban should be identified, the reason published, and the voting results by name made public. If it's for repeated posts needing moderation, list the reference to the offending posts. 1) above



All this can be done without revealing the contents of the offending post.

It will reveal if specific mods are repeatedly modding specific users, and if a group of mods are "ganging up" on specific users.

Let's see which mods will agree to have their actions exposed to public scrutiny.

This will be transparency without allowing the offensive posts to stand, which seems to be the issue.

...and other issues on moderation policy.

I still wonder why someone gets banned who points out bullying, and another one gets banned for making clear that a post brought up as a lame excuse was nothing more than just that: a lame excuse to justify the bullies.

Dear Eric, Have your 2, 3 Uber-bullies told you who is to be considered as one of the evil ones and who is to be banned? Do you really think these 2, 3 can be trusted more than those who have been moderated/demodded/banned because they spoke up against them??
When so many on the boards complain, this can't be just excused by "hidden agenda". Of course: when bullies are called bullies, they will - instead of admitting it - rather claim to have been annoyed, antagonized or insulted and want to get rid of the accuser by all costs, as can be seen here daily.

I know, to you the project has priority over the board. - But is money really influencing your judgment so much more than the common sense? Are donations really more important than a peaceful board? I hope that's not the case.

You do not know why any of these people were banished. I am not at liberty to discuss why, but none of the reasons given by you were the reason for the ban.

I think there can be transparency without having the offending post visible.

1) If a post is hidden, it should be replaced in situ with the name of the mod who did the hiding, and the specific rule violated.

2) If a user is banned, the mod who requested the ban should be identified, the reason published, and the voting results by name made public. If it's for repeated posts needing moderation, list the reference to the offending posts. 1) above



All this can be done without revealing the contents of the offending post.

It will reveal if specific mods are repeatedly modding specific users, and if a group of mods are "ganging up" on specific users.

Let's see which mods will agree to have their actions exposed to public scrutiny.

This will be transparency without allowing the offensive posts to stand, which seems to be the issue.

This won't really help. There are not that many active moderators. All you would have is the word of the moderator that that particular post violated a particular rule. There have been episodes where one moderator was deleting repeated violations by the same user for hours (same violation repeated over and over) until the administrator banished that user. These would show up as a persecution according to you, but were in actual fact valid deletions.

---

BOINC WIKI

If someone is to be banned, the vote should be from all Mods.

---

Join Calm Chaos

With the current state of progress in the Forums and other things that do not relate directly to posting in the Forums I am surpised that you bring this up.

It "implies" that you might have false insider information, and is not so good. It implies that someone might share something that is directly designed to create a scare amongst users... To create information that is slanted and/or incorrect.

To an extent that is what we have been talking about, someone started a Forum Thread and threads stating that Tony got banned for some bogus reason. It got to the point where Eric stated that Tony was wrong and why he got banned.

Now you want to create some kind new of sensation about something that has been beat near to death. In Tony's case every available moderator voted yes within the time period.

Now please go read the Orignal post by Eric!

If someone is to be banned, the vote should be from all Mods.

---

Please consider a Donation to the Seti Project.

There are questions being asked that Eric has already stated that can not be answered here.

Many things have been shared within the strict guidelines that the moderators are under. For some I hope it gives what is needed to get past some issues... For others it has been stated that they keep causing issues to get a point across...

For me that is sad, I know there are ways to get the point across to those that need it. What is happening to me is not the correct way to make that happen.

Over the years I have presented many things to Eric from both Seti and Seti Beta. I know that progress takes time. I know that many improvements in both how seti works and what is available in the Forums is a result of what I have seen from users or what might have been communicated to me and then I had the chance to speak with Eric. Seti is not what it was two years ago, there has been progress...

For the many people that have Helped that Progress, Thank You!
For those that have identified the Problems, Thank You.

There are still things things to get taken care of... Myself and other have seen, heard and try to insure that things can be taken care of.

Right now, this thread has degenerated into something that will end up causing more hate and discontent. That is sad...

I will let Eric know that I did this Draconian Deed... Then he can come and look and decide whether it should be reopened. As it is the weekend I expect nothing before Monday.

Regards

---

Please consider a Donation to the Seti Project.

All this can be done without revealing the contents of the offending post.

It will reveal if specific mods are repeatedly modding specific users, and if a group of mods are "ganging up" on specific users.

Let's see which mods will agree to have their actions exposed to public scrutiny.

This will be transparency without allowing the offensive posts to stand, which seems to be the issue.

How many juries do you know of where the name of each juror and their vote are made public? There is a reason for the anonymity. You want each Moderator to stand by their action, and to point out "bullying", but what about the opposite? What about a user (any user, and not even necessarily from our small group of trouble makers) who decides to use this information and target one specific Mod for some personal reason?

I think this falls under the "too much info" category. Not everyone needs to see everything if it doesn't pertain to them.

[Edit]I was asked (well, told to actually) to add this in - a public polling of a jury is an option during some cases where each juror is asked to stand up and state their vote. Such an option is not available in all courtroom cases, nor is a person-by-person accounting available in a closed deliberation room, as is the case with the SETI Mods list.

Also, I should point out that such a 'jury polling' is only available to those in the courtroom - not the entire public. Such a peer-review of a jury would be overkill and would undermine the intent to keep the jurors to only 12.

---

Dear Eric, Have your 2, 3 Uber-bullies told you who is to be considered as one of the evil ones and who is to be banned?

Every moderator that has moderated more than a few posts gets accused of being a bully. There are many frequent posters upon which the charge of being a bully has also been levied. Usually I find that "bully" means "they said or did something that I didn't like."

I know, to you the project has priority over the board. - But is money really influencing your judgment so much more than the common sense? Are donations really more important than a peaceful board? I hope that's not the case.

I don't see where this comes from. Are you theorizing that someone is making donations that are contingent on keeping the current moderators in power? If so are you assuming such donations would be of sufficient quantity to influence how I act? If so you greatly underestimate my price.

If donations are a prime driver, then shutting down the forums is probably a GOOD idea.

---

{Paraphrased} Why don't all the moderators vote on a banishment?

There are a number of reasons. First, a moderator could choose not to vote. For example some moderators only moderate in certain forums or only on weekends (by choice). Second, because not all of the moderators are awake at the same time. It's a big planet, and if votes are going to take less than 24 hours, you can't guarantee that everyone will be awake for the vote.

There is a trade off between length of the temporary ban that occurs during a vote and the desire to have more voting moderators. Right now the vote duration is 6 hours, which means that the poster is banished for 6 hours even if the vote results in them not being banished. We could change that to 24 hours if you wanted, but then anyone can be banished for 24 hours just by a moderator requesting a vote.

How many juries do you know of where the name of each juror and their vote are made public? There is a reason for the anonymity.

Also, don't forget that part of the reason for that anonymity is so that moderators don't feel pressured by other moderators to vote in a specific manner. Even I don't look at who voted and how. A public vote will guarantee bullying in an attempt to affect the outcome.

---