Precisely what Spidervlad said, really, you shouldn't take the job if you can't do it to a painstakingly fair and accurate level. I don't buy the whole "You don't know how hard our job is." bs. If you can't do it properly, don't do it at all. It seems like Homer Simpson logic is in effect; If you can't do it, you just do it really half-assed.
I'm not saying there aren't mods who follow the rules, but most mods are just regular members, but for some reason, have the ability to ban. There are mods who do the exact same things as ordinary members, yet because they ARE mods, have the ability to wield their power irresponsibly, and you know this better than most, Backfire, because we've spoke about it. The funny thing is, bias aside, you do a better job than most, you're just a good example of the hypocricy of sensitivity here.
On that note, I think the mods do need to realise, as do some of the members, that they are just normal people. To suggest "We're mods, so we don't make things personal." is quite ridiculous, as we've all seen it, and before someone suggests I'm referring to me, I'm not. Not singularly anyway.
Point summarised: If mods stuck exactly to the rules, and the breaking point was exactly the same for everyone, they wouldn't need to explain themselves, because it would be simple. If you troll, you get banned. If you flame (Because insults are how they're interpreted a lot of the time.), you get banned. If you blatantly sock, you get banned.
The reason people ask for explanations is because there are way too many reasons, outside of rulebreaking, that cause mods to make bans.
Ah, that's horsecrap, AC. Ask for those kind of requirements and you would simply get zero moderators. You should be grateful for the work we do, not demanding more of it. You get this place free of charge for your entertainment and we work damn hard to keep it going. Telling us we should not take the job if we don't want to fill in reports on every banned member is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard.
I'll remind you what the 'some reason' is (because your statement seems to imply it is almost random). Because Raz, the owner of this place, who pays the money for it, has vested that authority in us. This isn't a democracy, it is a private area provided for your benefit. Its private owner has total power to run things as he likes. So that is the absolute bottom line- the 'some reason' is the absolute best reason you can get, in this place.
It was only for your immediate convenience that the notes explaining bans- which were fairly much an internal reference system for ourselves- were made available for all posters to see. There is no damn way that, having released that info for you, is that then going to be made an excuse for us to have to fill out a load more info.
You are simply going to have to deal with the fact that moderators are not robots, they are Human beings. We use our discretion, and the system is all the better for that.
This request is entirely unreasonable. We're sticking with what we have. If you are desperate foir more info on a case, you can ask a mod, but it is entirely up to them whether to respond or not.
"We've got maybe seconds before Darth Rosenberg grinds everybody into Jawa burgers and not one of you buds has the midi-chlorians to stop her!"
"You've never had any TINY bit of sex, have you?"
Last edited by Ushgarak on Apr 21st, 2007 at 09:13 AM
Yeah, every mod should be fair and accurate and do the requirements of the "job". That's absolutely true. The point is that the requirement of the job shouldn't include writing long winded explanations for every single ban that occurs. Usually one word is enough -- "Troll" "Flaming" "Socking" or whatever, going into greater detail would just be redundant in most cases.
It's usually very clear why someone was banned, sometimes it's not, I know. In that case a simple PM to a mod should do enough, we're aware that some bannings aren't as cut and dry as others, and some questions may arise from members who don't understand why the ban occured, in that case, I don't think any of us would have a problem with giving a more detailed explanation to those who ask politely.
All the moderators ARE people who would like to do all of that without getting paid. Hence why we do it. What we shouldn't be expected nor forced to do is waste needless time writing unnecessarily long and detailed reports on why someone was banned for socking or trolling. We have more important things to deal with usually.
And as I said above, on the cases that do warrant a longer explanation, you are welcome to PM a mod and ask politely why someone was banned or warned.
Last edited by BackFire on Apr 21st, 2007 at 09:57 AM
i personally appreciate any and all assistance you can and always have readily given, but you seem to imply there that you're dragging a cross for us. moderating is not that difficult. i agree that it shouldnt be, im on your side there as you have no material incentive to do it, but for the most part its not difficult and you enjoy doing it, as many would. so you do get a degree of reward.
"Sell crazy someplace else. We're all stocked up here."
Last edited by Schecter on Apr 21st, 2007 at 07:05 PM
Right, how long does it take you to preety much just write 4 sentences and quote what the person you banned said, if you ban him for trolling and so on? 7 minutes maximum. Really, it's not that hard. Your acting like everyone is FORCING you to moderate and do your job. If you simply don't have those 7 minutes, then you should not be a moderator.
I have seen several forums which are even smaller than KMC, where Moderators have to fill out a FORM when banning a person. We're just asking you to write down 5 sentences and if the banned person was trolling or flaming, just quote it.
Most forums have a special "Black List" thread where all the names of banned people are written down with the reason why.
Honestly, why do you need to know what the person said that got them banned? How is it really anyone's business besides the member and the moderating team? Remember there was a time not so long ago when we didn't have that portion of our profiles which state why the person was banned. Almost always it is painfully obvious what the person did that got them banned.
We used to have a moderator run Banned Member thread...dunno what happened to it.
I'm not sure how you are possibly misunderstaning what I'm saying to such a massive degree. I'm not acting like anyone is forcing me to do anything, or where you came up with the 7 minute thing. I dunno, I could see it easily taking 8 minutes. Especially since most of the time there simply isn't 4 sentances worth of needed information to post, trying to think of four sentances when someone was simply "Socking" would be pretty difficult. Like being back in High School, when the teachers said "This needs to be 7 pages" but I'd write it and said everything that needed to be said in 5, so I had to add 2 pages of filler.
All I'm saying is we have enough actually necessary things to do without adding a completely unnecessary thing that would take up a good deal of our time.
And it has nothing to do with me not having those 7 minutes, it's a matter of those 7 minutes being spent doing something more productive and useful then spending them describing what most would already usually know.
And you're forgetting that sometimes we ban more than 1 person at once. Sometimes we ban several all at once, hence during these situations the amount of time wasted describing the reason for each of them would amount to quite a bit.
I thought it was 4 sentances. Now it's 5? This is alarming, the number of sentances you want keeps growing. Four was difficult enough, when the word "Sock" or "Troll" is plenty explanation for most bannings. But now 5...jesus. And it doesn't matter what other forums do. What matters is that we don't do it like that, why? Because it's a waste of time.
Really though, as I said, if you want more information about a specific banned member, you are free to ask a moderator. Chances are they won't have a problem giving you that information.
Really though, most of the time I don't see the need to just inherently have to write 4 or 5 sentances for every ban regardless of whether it's actually necessary. Hence, why it will never ever happen.
Last edited by BackFire on Apr 21st, 2007 at 07:57 PM