From some of the other threads, it appears people are really worried about the new mod system. I wanted to start this thread so people can sort of air what specifically concerns them, and we can discuss ways to handle it.
I admit I appear to be coming from a very biased position, but I don't think this is a particularly big deal. In the past, I've IMed GTO a lot about people's names being posted, and he's had to delete them himself. This makes it so I can delete them immediately, and he can double-check the log afterwards to make sure everything is fine. If the deletion was in error, he can click "restore" and the thread pops back exactly as it was before. Beyond that, I can recategorize threads as on/off-topic.
If there is some specific abuse you guys are worried about, please share it here.
To be completely serious, the obliqueness of xoxo's anti-outing policy worries me. Someone compiles the things Paulie Walnuts (who has, incidentally, outed other people) has posted about himself here, puts it on a webpage, and drops the link on xoxo. The webpage contains no name but the links get deleted by mods. Someone posts leakyjuicebox's real name, even though she's never revealed that information on this board, and you refuse to delete those threads. How does that make sense?
I think this is a completely reasonable concern, and something I have gone multiple rounds with GTO on IM. I think the anti-outing policy should be much more stringent (i.e., way more names deleted). He and Rachmiel disagree with me.
That said, I don't see this disagreement as impacting the modding system at all. I basically see my job as helping out when GTO isn't around to catch something. As best I can, I am going to apply GTO's outting policy (even though I, and many others, aren't particularly happy with it).
In that regard, I think the only difference with mods vs. without is that when people ARE outted in a way that GTO would normally delete their names, their name will get deleted faster. The policy itself doesn't change, just the speed of response.
And if we get overeager and delete something that GTO wouldn't, he can easily restore the thread/post to pre-deletion status.
I'm curious, what is GTO's outing policy? I know what he says it is, self outing excluded, if you out someone else, you don't get protected. However, as far as I can tell, someone who's never revealed their name here, and who hasn't outed anyone else, is covered by this policy, right? When you say you'll apply GTO's policy, how do you plan to do that? Do you protect those who are covered by its letter? Or just those GTO feels like protecting and doesn't have a grudge against?
Basically, what I plan to do is ask GTO. For example, last night, when the Pauliewalnuts stuff occured, I IMed him and said "If this guy's name gets posted, do you want me to delete or let it go?" He said he would discuss it with Rachmiel and get back to me.
For a lot of posters, GTO has already drawn the line (e.g., you can't post sugarywitch's name), so this just skips the step of me IMing him and asking him to remove it (which I've done many times before). Now, I can go directly to deleting it.
Otherwise, I'll probably err on the side of caution. If I see a name posted that I've never seen before, I'll probably delete and then IM GTO immediately to let him know that I deleted it, and let him decide on whether to restore it or not.
I was the only mod last night. And that is because I happened to be online and agreed to help him test out the system. I believe everyone else was modded this afternoon when the sticky was put up.
I suppose it was for me. I don't think anyone else had mod powers until the sticky went up. And I only had them because I was helping him test it all out to make sure it worked.
All I did last night was a) recategorize a few threads and b) delete about 12 King of Ruckus floods.
Date: March 1st, 2007 6:12 PM Author: Violent Address
Yup:
"Just to be crystal clear, this isn't a popularity contest: if 100 people nominate WhitePride he still won't be made a mod, and if 100 people say to demod NYCFan he'll be a mod if he wishes to remain one. Similarly, there are a few people rachmiel and I are likely going to invite to be mods even if their names don't appear here because we know they are reliable and trust them to do a good job."
Date: March 1st, 2007 6:18 PM Author: translucent hairraiser gunner point
Except "that I plan to appoint" wasn't correct, since MTG had already been made a mod and we were only told as an after thought. He made it seem as though we had some choice in the matter.
Date: March 1st, 2007 6:22 PM Author: Violent Address
"Just to be crystal clear, this isn't a popularity contest: if 100 people nominate WhitePride he still won't be made a mod, and if 100 people say to demod NYCFan he'll be a mod if he wishes to remain one. Similarly, there are a few people rachmiel and I are likely going to invite to be mods even if their names don't appear here because we know they are reliable and trust them to do a good job."
Date: March 1st, 2007 6:10 PM Author: Violent Address
The "process" was to get recommendations to supplement people I already had in mind. The post specifically said that it wasn't a popular contest and that I was going to make some people mods even if no one recommended them and refuse to make other people mods even if 100 people recommended them.
Date: March 1st, 2007 6:15 PM Author: Violent Address
Strawman argument? Look at the original post:
"Just to be crystal clear, this isn't a popularity contest: if 100 people nominate WhitePride he still won't be made a mod, and if 100 people say to demod NYCFan he'll be a mod if he wishes to remain one. Similarly, there are a few people rachmiel and I are likely going to invite to be mods even if their names don't appear here because we know they are reliable and trust them to do a good job."
Date: March 1st, 2007 6:20 PM Author: Lavender internal respiration goal in life
"Similarly, there are a few people rachmiel and I are likely going to invite to be mods even if their names don't appear here because we know they are reliable and trust them to do a good job."
SRSLY, are you going to try and parse this in such a way that it doesn't contradict what you're saying?
Date: March 1st, 2007 6:22 PM Author: translucent hairraiser gunner point
DUDE:
"Similarly, there are a few people rachmiel and I are likely going to invite to be mods even if their names don't appear here because we know they are reliable and trust them to do a good job."
DOES NOT EQUAL
"I have already appointed certain people moderators."
Date: March 1st, 2007 6:25 PM Author: Lavender internal respiration goal in life
First, I am NOT aznaznazn. Them's fightin' words, buddy.
Second, yeah, but in this case, of what importance is that distinction? It's not like MTG was secretly lording it up as a THE MAD MODERATOR for weeks before...he was merely already given those privileges because he was helping test the software. As GTO makes clear, MTG was among those people who would have been a mod regardless of whether he was nominated or not. The fact that he got an early preview of that, simply for technical purposes, is pretty meaningless.
C'mon Vector...let me bribe you here: see reason on this point, and I'll post some more "ITT chancemeeting gives you free [X]" threads giving you the opportunity to pwn me mercilessly.
Date: March 1st, 2007 6:27 PM Author: translucent hairraiser gunner point
Because GTO was intentionally being untruthful. He made it seem as though he was undecided about who would be appointed (though he already had some fore-runners in his mind) and that we would play a part in the decision making. The truth of the matter was that he had already made at least one person a mod and had decided who the rest of the mods would be (were any of the people he chose even nominated on that thread? (besides Joe from Caltech).
>C'mon Vector...let me bribe you here: see reason on this point, and I'll post some more "ITT chancemeeting gives you free [X]" threads giving you the opportunity to pwn me mercilessly.
Date: March 1st, 2007 6:01 PM Author: translucent hairraiser gunner point
Do you know how certain posters (sugarywitch, pauliewalnutz) were chosen to be on GTO's "must protect" list and other posters for some reason were left off (leakyjuicebox, ruskie, J....)
I have never outted myself or anyone, so I don't see how I compare to the other posters there. He had a really good reason not to out PW even though it was unusual.
LJB never outed anyone or revealed her name. Someone posts her real name. GTO lets the thread stick around because "she was mean to him at a meetup." Fair?
Date: March 1st, 2007 6:23 PM Author: translucent hairraiser gunner point
This was not an outting.
First of all, that happened *before* the anti-outting policy was in place.
Two, people post pics of xoxo posters all the time. Supposedly only names count as an outting.
Three, if you considered her posting pics of xoxo posters that she met up with IRL three years ago an "outting", shouldn't she have been IP banned years ago?
Date: March 1st, 2007 6:28 PM Author: Violent Address
"First of all, that happened *before* the anti-outting policy was in place."
Irrelevant.
"Two, people post pics of xoxo posters all the time. Supposedly only names count as an outting."
Wrong. Probably the most commonly deleted post this week were links to pics of sugarywitch.
"Three, if you considered her posting pics of xoxo posters that she met up with IRL three years ago an "outting", shouldn't she have been IP banned years ago?"
Why would we IP ban her for that? We almost never IP ban people, and I don't think we've IP banned anyone for only outing someone (though a few have been IP banned for outing and spamming, like Madame Cunt and LoreleiLee).
Date: March 1st, 2007 6:25 PM Author: adulterous fortuitous meteor
Reason not to out paulie walnuts? Also, this is unusual coming from you considering all the shit that he gave you. Something stinks about the whole t14/pauliewalnuts situation. It sure seems like GTO is hiding something.
Date: March 1st, 2007 6:01 PM Author: Violent House
Date: March 1st, 2007 5:58 PM
Author: MindTheGap76
Basically, what I plan to do is ask GTO. For example, last night, when the Pauliewalnuts stuff occured, I IMed him and said "If this guy's name gets posted, do you want me to delete or let it go?" He said he would discuss it with Rachmiel and get back to me.
--------------------------------------------
WAITWAITWAIT...youve been a MOD for a while now secretly? WTF?
Date: March 1st, 2007 6:03 PM Author: Crystalline Psychic
"Otherwise, I'll probably err on the side of caution. If I see a name posted that I've never seen before, I'll probably delete and then IM GTO immediately to let him know that I deleted it, and let him decide on whether to restore it or not."
this is exactly the kind of discretion mods should not have. you've been a fair voice on the board (on non-Chicago matters), but people embroiled in board drama should not have the temptation of abusing their discretion, however slight their powers are
The point being that GTO will still be the absolute final word on everything. In cases where a mod deletes something GTO would have already deleted, it just occurs faster. In cases where a mod deletes something that GTO wouldn't have deleted, he can undo it with the push of a single button.
I've already argued with GTO a lot about his outting policy, and I think I have a general sense of what it entails. I don't think I'll be the perfect GTO-replica, but I don't think there is much risk of abuse of discretion.
Date: March 1st, 2007 6:09 PM Author: Lavender internal respiration goal in life
What, pray tell, is controversial about me? Surely it's not just my one silly spat with J. If that's all it is, rest assured that won't be a problem at all.
I like you dood, but I honestly think you're quibbling just because you've found something you think you can quibble over.
Basically, the only differences are that a) on-topic threads are bold/off-topic threads are not and b) every thread has a d (for delete) and m (for move) next to it.
As long as you don't flood the board with them or use her name, my understanding is that I shouldn't touch them. So fire away, you creepy ass-eater, you!
As long as you don't flood the board with them or use her name, my understanding is that I shouldn't touch them. So fire away, you creepy ass-eater, you!
I started to address it over there, then saw the thread was already completely bogged down. As a result, I started this new thread exclusively to deal with it. If you want something discussed over here, bring it over here. I want to try and carry on the conversation in one place.
Date: March 1st, 2007 6:29 PM Author: Lavender internal respiration goal in life
It's thoroughly 'out,' dood. Don't you remember the "Cravath3L" threads, where he said he was ashamed of the people in his class like ColumbiaJD? He's made no secret of it, neither here nor on his "xoxoreader" blog.
Date: March 1st, 2007 6:16 PM Author: Crystalline Psychic
the main 2 points from the other thread
3. limit the available discretion for people doing this. lay out clearly what they can do, and what the criteria for them doing it is. for example, what is spam? is it just when they feel things are getting crazy, or is it x posts in y minutes? what is outting? is it when they feel like someone's being outed, or is it a real first name, last name, or initials being posted? what about pictures? etc. it should be clear to everyone when and why a post/thread is being moved/deleted/whatever. transparency is your friend, not your enemy
4. most importantly in picking the Deckscrubbers, you need to find people that are a) not involved in board drama and thus wouldnt be tempted to abuse their powers, however slight, and b) give posters a voice in choosing/vetoing them.
As far as I know all I can do is delete something I'm sure GTO would delete. If i could do more do you think the 8 trillion SW threads would still be there?
Date: March 1st, 2007 6:25 PM Author: Crystalline Psychic
i'd also suggest, purely as an psychological matter, to call them something besides mods - eg. a whimsical name like GTO's deckscrubbers, makes the idea less threatening and gets the idea of what you're implementing across
Response to 3: I don't see perfectly defining spam as necessary. I'll delete stuff when it seems an excessive amount of space on the front page is being taken over by garbage. Last night, King of Ruckus made about 12 "Yeah niggah yeah!" threads in about 3 minutes. I deleted those. I'm not engaged in some sort of editorial censorship, just preventing board flooding. This isn't a change in policy, just a way for other people besides GTO to handle everything. I don't think you're going to find too much to complain about re: spam management.
As to the outting situation, I'll talk with GTO a bit more about it. I know his general stance on who gets protection and who doesn't, but I'm not sure if he considers, e.g., initials to be outting. Real names and pictures count.
Response to 4: I agree with this. I hope people consider me an okay choice for mod, since I don't think I've ever been meaningfully involved in board drama.
Date: March 1st, 2007 6:46 PM Author: Lavender internal respiration goal in life
Assuming it's up to me, I would.
EDIT: I've been made aware that you outted yourself over on the college board. Why you would have done such a silly thing is beyond me, but you're unprotected in that case.
Date: March 1st, 2007 6:57 PM Author: translucent hairraiser gunner point
GTO says I posted my first name on the college board about three years ago. In any case, he's never shown where I post my last name. Some of the "outted" people gave out information about themselves, yet they are considered to have been outted.
The fact that GTO would contact you just to tell you this is evidence of how petty and spiteful he is.
If I see a name I've never seen before, and it is clear that it is meant to be associated with an XO poster, I'll delete it and then let GTO know that I deleted it so he can make a final call. If he thinks it was incorrectly deleted, he can click restore.
(Assuming this isn't in a leadup to some huge XO catfight where the outted poster just moments before posted a bunch of other people's names).
EDIT: The place where GTO and I most disagree is for third parties that get dragged in and then blacklisted on google. For example, I would have deleted the Chicago 1L's name who had his journal posted (not the link to the journal, just the name). GTO wouldn't have. I'll apply GTO's policy.
The only protected individuals are XO posters. Non-XO posters who have their names posted here cannot have their names deleted.
If an XO poster's name is posted, it will be deleted with two exceptions: 1) if that poster has outted him or herself; 2) if that poster has previously outted other posters.
Date: March 1st, 2007 10:44 PM Author: Cream spectacular lodge
I think by "no protection for non-xo posters," it means nobody is going to stop a poster from saying e.g. the Asian Penn 1L chick with the huge rack is Jiamie Chen.
These are issues for GTO to deal with. If I see "John Smith AKA kibitzer is a douchebag" I'm deleting unless I've previously seen kibitzer posting peoples names. If I see "John Smith, 1L at GULC, is a douchebag" I'm leaving it alone.
Date: March 1st, 2007 10:42 PM Author: crawly milk hospital
The gray area that accompanies both exceptions is what gets people so annoyed. Honestly, this outing policy sounds like it was concocted by two utter morons...oh right. Carry on.
I agree that the outting policy is dumb. I'm not making the outting policy, I'm just helping GTO enforce it. For 99% of the time, that means deleting sugarywitch's name when it is posted.
Date: March 1st, 2007 10:49 PM Author: translucent hairraiser gunner point
Why is sugarywitch entitled to such protection? I don't have anything against her, but it seems like GTO is on some crusade to protect one of his favorites, the rest of the board be damned.
Because she never gave outting details of herself and never outted anyone else?
I don't know. As I've repeatedly said, I'm not hear to defend the policy. I'm here to add another eye to the site, which is mostly a lot of mundane reclassifying.
Date: March 1st, 2007 10:54 PM Author: translucent hairraiser gunner point
It just seems odd that GTO would put all of this into motion to protect one poster. He seems to have no regard for other posters who have been in the same position in the past.
Date: March 2nd, 2007 3:01 AM Author: fuchsia bossy blood rage
Not that it matters, since it appears that I don't have mod powers any more, but that was quite clearly not to be taken literally. The point being that of the protected folks, hers is the name most frequently posted and therefore one of the few recurring justifications for thread deletion.
I would of course delete other people's outted names, but that doesn't tend to happen very often.
Date: March 2nd, 2007 9:53 AM Author: translucent hairraiser gunner point
I wasn't being "intentionally dense."
It wasn't obvious that you were joking. GTO is obviously very committed to protecting sugary. I can't think of any other poster that he has devoted so much time to. I don't think it was ridiculous to think that you were being serious when you said that most of the time, you'd be deleting her name.
God... this is why people think you're a pompous ass.
We aren't running anything, could you guys over react more? IF we do anything GTO doesn't like it goes back to what he would have done. If we do it too much we are out. Not a huge deal.
Date: March 2nd, 2007 3:03 AM Author: Sapphire travel guidebook
I like you, but I'm sorry, you are not worthy of MOD status. Period. Only NYCFan is smart enough, prestigious enough and honorable enough to deserve mod status.