Perhaps, then, you should share the discussion that your peers indeed have on these issues? It'd reinforce that actual consideration was given to the issue, and it wasn't just one moderator going 'welp, fuck this guy! BAM!'

I'd prefer if they kept their discussions secret because

A) It is not a matter of life or death but it's a a petty issue (imo)
B) It will better facilitate private discussions if they are not constantly worried about their conversations "leaking" more or less.

The only thing that results from publicly airing this information is that the administration/moderation becomes sneakier with how they discuss things and recording policies of the problems and issues fall apart.

If this were some sort of huge scandal...like...Moose is using his power over other members to get better prices on his coke addiction, that's one thing...but it isn't.

And severity depreciates quickly. It doesn't even look that bad, really. It's like getting a slap on the wrist - embarrassing, but as long as you learn from it doesn't have any long term repercussions.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Sep 12 2012, 2:13 am by NudeRaider. Reason: Lets not heat things up unnecessarily

I'd rather not do that. We've had a few cases where staff members had told members about these discussions and that seemed to make matters worse.

You are not the only one who has an opinion on this matter.


I fail to see why that is a bad thing. They should always be conscious of what they say; if there indeed was a scenario where one of the moderators did say, "welp, fuck this guy!', then that is a key example of why the moderators should not be allowed to make these kinds of decisions. If a moderator is afraid of showing bias, that indicates that there is indeed bias - and as such, the moderator is no longer fit to make a decision on that matter.


Then the system (or the people (or both)) need to change. If we can't rely on people who have been entrusted with this responsibility to make good decisions, we need to find people who we can rely on; that person is not you or I, and perhaps it's not any of the existing moderators. Perhaps it is. My views aren't meant to implicate specific moderators or members, but to show that there is an alternative that we can institute in order to further this site's progression. We clearly don't have an open mind to change - and don't get me wrong, an "open mind" obviously doesn't mean "hey everyone, let's change EVERYTHING!" What we have here, though, is a vehemence - a view that change is vile, that the current systems are the best they can be, and that changing them must be avoided at all costs.

That just flat out isn't true; it's a fact that perfection is unachievable by humanity because our definition of perfection is always out of reach. We have no attained perfection in SEN's moderation systems. We never will. But we can improve.


It's cute how you try to diminish other people's arguments by comparing them to vastly dissimilar things. No, you're right - Moose isn't adding severity in the name of cocaine. Such silly notions really don't have a place in a serious discussion about potential change - proving my point concerning our vehement opposition to change even further than it has been proven already.


I'm not arguing that severity looks terrible on your record, or that it deprecates too slowly. I'm arguing that changes can be made to how the system works before severity is issued, as well as after, to ensure that the chances of someone feeling like they were treated unfairly are drastically smaller. The only people who should conceivably care if the reasons for moderation were shared are the moderators themselves, and they should only care if they're dealing with the issue in am illicit or reprehensible manner.


A few, you say? Well, shit. Let me stop everything and pray for you. I hold no notions that this will make the problems go away; however, I suggested this alternative because it is a direct response to the issue posed by this thread; are moderators dealing with their duties incorrectly? You can justify whatever decision you arrive on through the moderation discussions much easier if you simply share relevant exchanges between other moderators, to show that this was neither a one man decision nor a quick reflex, but a well-thought-out group discussion that eventually resulted in a resolution to the incident.

There's no need to be condescending. How about I word it this way: every member who was told details about a discussion that took place about them made matters worse by raising even more hell rather than accepting the decision. I believe that if details of our discussions were made public, nothing would change. The member who felt wrongly moderated in the first place would most likely say we're still wrong. We have no obligation to make our discussions public, and have no intention of making them public now or any time in the near future.

If it really was simply a matter of members wanting to know that they weren't unjustly moderated, then this is exactly why it has been mentioned multiple times in this thread and in private PMs to members and elsewhere that if anyone has an issue with moderation, they can bring it up to the moderator, a GM, or me, and any of us will explain the situation and notify the member that discussion is taking place privately (if a discussion is even necessary). There have been a few instances where Severity is removed or actions have been undone after such a group discussion, so asking us about it doesn't always result in rejection.

Neither are you? Neither am I? That's what the topic is for, our opinions.

This isn't true. A moderator might be afraid of being unjustly perceived as biased, when he isn't actually being biased at all.

I think this is an overblown characterization of things.

Her argument was meant to diminish the importance of other arguments by comparing the scopes of the arguments. The outcome of the same exact argument may appear very valid when taken in one scope, but may appear utterly ridiculous and unreasonable when viewed in the context of a larger scope. If you have 10 hours to spend in order to make money, would you spend those 10 hours cutting coupons to save some pocket change, or working at your job to make hundreds of dollars? The scope determines the balance of the situation; is it worth it to spend lots of time bickering over minute details with someone in a moderation case, or to just have the ruling be made and move on? If we have a huge staff/posting ratio, obviously it wouldn't be worth the amount of time. Here on SEN? It's probably better that the moderators put a few extra minutes of thought into something before they make a ruling, since our staff/post is probably pretty high. Either way, scope does matter.

I think DevliN's whole point here is that even when they do share, the people whining just pick apart the arguments piecemeal, much like we're doing with each other now, and drone on and on and on because they think they were wronged, and just end up wasting everybody's time. Its hard for a person to accept another person's judgement, especially when we don't like it. If its consideration you want, it should be enough that the moderators say "hey we all thought about this, and we agree with the decision." If that's not enough, then you're calling them liars.

How would we determine this anyway? Obviously you think they aren't the best they can be. I think they're close enough. Who is to say who's right? How do we measure when the moderation was right, or when the complainer was right? Now, when I say close enough, what is mean is that the amount of extra time and effort required to make them "better" just isn't worth it. What I see, is that when people tend to complain about moderation decisions they're just being arrogant or a rules lawyer or egotistical. There are exceptions, sure. But even in the case of an exception, is it really worth it to spend hours building huge arguments against each other for or against the "correctness" of 1 severity point? When it dissapears in like a week or whatever? I really don't think so. It's good to have a discussion like this topic has provoked once in a while, but no more than "once in a while."

So is this topic now officially about moderation/severity fairness/efficiency? It's like 30 posts ago when I've last seen something regarding the questions asked in the OP.
Because if so, I'd have something to say too...

Go for it, Nude.

I stand behind what I said on pronogo earlier; if you don't have any solutions to the problem stop whining. You're contributing to spam you're not helping.

It doesn't benefit anyone to say "You shouldn't voice your opinion." That's exactly what this forum is for, and is exactly the kind of communication which needs to be taking place. I'm not sure what the point is of continually replying to someone to tell them that you don't want to see their opinion; that's far less constructive by comparison, and not seeing their "whining" is as easy as not reading their posts.

I'm allowed to have my opinion that the purpose of complaints has run thin. As I told pronogo, and as I tell you now, if we're going to continue whining then we need to come up with a game plan to end the issue. My game plan to end me whining about other people whining is to call them to action. So Azrael, how would you fix this serious problem with administrative behavior?

"Stating that there is a problem is just whining. If you're not going to give solutions to a problem, then don't even say there is a problem."

That's the general message that I'm getting from you.

You can call the fire department to tell them someone's house is on fire, it doesn't require you to be able to solve the situation by yourself.

As for solutions, I've already talked about this extensively, even in this thread. Perhaps you would care to read the thread in its entirety, especially the second page, before demanding I repeat what has already been said.

On that note, the discussion seems fairly cyclical at this point. The staff has likely garnered any useful information from it that there is to find, and the remaining dialogue is just petty bickering. Both you and Pro have resorted to using insulting language directed at the other.

My vote is for the thread to be closed, before any more off-topic arguing is used as an excuse to farm minerals.

Ugh. The Fire department and this is totally different. But I'll play along. Okay, you call the fire department. They're on their way. Do you continue to complain to the fire department before they get there, while they are there fighting the fire, and after they leave?

Ding ding ding! So why are you still here if you've already proved your point? Why are you bickering?

I'm not.

Sorry, just close this topic. It's obvious Kame is just here to instigate/troll by looking at the trends of her posts in this thread and at this point the topic has already served it's purpose.

Thank you.