-->
@David
Link?
Moderators rights
Posts
Archived
Read-only
Total:
122
-->
@ethang5
My opinion is informed, as indicated by the seat site you currently can't access.
Mine is informed as well, I've been on the site for a lot longer than you have and have known airmax a lot longer than you have. Bringing up "opinions" is pretty irrelevant. You have a point, back it up and prove you are informed lol.
How do you know? He posted TODAY with his mod Airmax account.
No he didn't, his account was closed lol. That's impossible. Regardless even if he was posting, that means nothing for his interest in continuing to moderate.
Nonsense. He has an obligation as long as he accepts the position of mod.
So, what if he no longer accepts his position of mod? Because that's basically already happened lol. Are you saying someone can't quit their job at will?
Airmax is still mod of DDO.
Technically not anymore, his account was banned en masse with all the others, mine included. Regardless, just because he still has mod powers, doesn't mean he is forced to use them lol.
I know. Which is why he should have resigned and let someone who wanted to work, work.
He has resigned, lol. He doesn't have the ability to give mod powers to anyone, that is Juggle. Again you are mid-directing all the blame on him, when Juggle are the ones who could do something to solve your problems.
Dude! I'm talking about starting from 2 years ago.
Anything you are talking about, you are refusing to cite, and you are also not wanting to show private messages. No one knows what you are talking about. For all we know you were completely in the wrong about the whole thing. However if it was that long ago, and this is the core reason for your dislike for airmax, you are clearly showing your weakness here. This is some old vendetta for you since Max didn't take your side lol.
Completely untrue. I was not the only person who brought it up to him. The site was working. He called a filthy racist "problematic" and did absolutely nothing. Not even a "cut it out". No one asked him to ban anyone.
Without you citing anything, this is pretty meaningless. We have one clearly biased side of the story, and no evidence to support your claims.
I doubt you've known him longer, but it matters not. He was a poor mod, and our present situation is the culmination of his ennui and incompetence.
Lol I literally play games with him almost daily, but sure, I don't know him as well as you ;-)
Both of them share fault. Max was the head mod. My blame on him is objective, correct, and supported by the sad state of affairs.
If you think you've substantiated anything to back up your claims, you have a pretty bad understanding of what is "objective" and "correct".
If he was permabanned, how was he on the site yesterday? Several people on the site now make RM seem like a priest. You have no clue what you're talking about.
RationalMadman's newest account has been made post Max caring about moderating. I know exactly what I am talking about, you are just too stubborn to admit your acting like a rebellious ideologue.
Trolls have run wild for more than 2 years. And no one forced him to take the job. He was a terribly poor mod.
Trolling isn't a basis for banning. If you want a completely serious website, you probably won't find it here. There will be trolls here too.
If the troll and spam eaten site doesn't convince you, nothing will.
Both of these have nothing to do with whether max was a good mod or not.
The dead site is my substantiation. This thread full of ragged DDO refugees is my substantiation.
Lol so you honestly think people left DDO because of how max moderates, or are you confusing two different topics? You are all over the place mate.
I highly doubt this. No one had contact with him for ages, not even juggle.
Now you are just trolling lol. There is no way you honestly believe this. Max frequently visits hangouts to speak to his friends. Hell Mr. conspiracy theorist, I can probably get him to get in a hangout with you and we can all discuss this and you can throw your accusations about his modding to his (virtual) face.
OK. And I think you are one of those people too easily influenced by a little power. A hanger on.But we are allowed to disagree. I just think the current condition of DDO supports my opinion much better than yours.
The current state of DDO has literally nothing to do with your claim of Max being a bad mod. Hey though, hit me up if you wanna take me up on that google hangout idea. I think it would be pretty interesting to hear you say some of this stuff to Max and actually reference some stuff instead of making broad, unsubstantiated claims.
-->
@ethang5
How do you know this? But anyway, he accepted the post, so whining about the lack of pay is dishonest.
Hmm, thought you were informed on DDO history so much more than I was lol. The DDO presidency used to come with mod abilties, Max was elected as president and earned his mod abilities that way, back when Juggle was still active. Shortly after the next election cycle they stopped all activity. The only user elected mod before him was innomen. Both were regular site members before ever having mod powers, and were given these abilities by Juggle after volunteering and being elected president.
Immaterial. The site is garbage now because it has been run incompetently. How long or how well you know him only serves to confirm your bias.Mine is informed as well, I've been on the site for a lot longer than you have and have known airmax a lot longer than you have.
Before his account was closed genius. And I posted here with a link saying Air had posted using his official mod username.No he didn't, his account was closed lol.
He lost that interest some time ago gamer. That is the point.that means nothing for his interest in continuing to moderate.
That is the definition of incompetent and lazy. Wake up.just because he still has mod powers, doesn't mean he is forced to use them lol.
Thank you. So much for him being "so busy". Perhaps if he had done more modding and less gaming, you wouldn't have to now be defending the indefensible.Lol I literally play games with him almost daily,
so you honestly think people left DDO because of how max moderates,
Yes. He enabled the condition that made people leave by not doing his job. For years.
The current state of DDO has literally nothing to do with your claim of Max being a bad mod.
Irrational beliefs are not illegal. I prefer not to hold them.
Trolling isn't a basis for banning.
It wasn't with Max, but it should have been. Try it here and see if Mike shares your opinion.
There will be trolls here too.
That is why sites have mods, and why they should do the job they signed up to do instead of gaming as their site burns.
Hmm, thought you were informed on DDO history so much more than I was lol.
And why would you think that? I've said nothing about history. You know Max as a gaming friend. I know Max as mod. It is cute that you think you're being loyal to a pal, but the wreck that is DDO convicts you.
You know nothing of running a website or of how to mod. Max may at one time have had good intentions, but that stopped being the case long ago.
Only the immature cry at criticism. No one hates Max. Some really like him. He still was a terrible mod though.
-->
@Lunatic
>Max isn't an active mod anymore, he has no real obligation to the website, especially after the influx of spam.
How do you know? He posted TODAY with his mod Airmax account.
>I am very good friends with him and talk to him almost daily outside of the website.
I highly doubt this. Airmax is still mod of DDO.
>Technically not anymore, his account was banned en masse with all the others, mine included. He has resigned, lol.
You didn't know. Max is back moderating on DDO.
Perhaps he forgot to tell you as you guys played WoW together yesterday.
-->
@ethang5
That was an HOUR ago, not yesterday. Juggle just barely unbanned all the accounts they banned yesterday. You trying to cite this to back up a point you made yesterday is hilarious though lol. Regardless, this post doesn't mean he is back to actively moderating.http://www.debate.org/forums/debate.org/topic/4135066/Perhaps he forgot to tell you as you guys played WoW together yesterday.
-->
@DebateArt.com
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/101
I near wholly agree with 1h and Bsh1's take on moderators, and the powers and elective process therein. 👏👏.
There seems to be a need for a check on popular removal to whims. Perhaps a heightened ratio of votes? Instead of a simply majority a supermajority set at 2/3-3/4 perhaps?
For issues of bans for popular users, if i may suggest(and sorry if its been said):
1) the senior moderator acts as a judge in necessary conjunction with the site ownership.⚖
2) the junior moderator acts as a prosecution of sorts. ⚖
3) defendants be given an opportunity to defend themselves. ⚖
- Trials be a balance of "fairness" and "expediency".
- Rulings be clear in reason and operate with as much consistency as possible.
4) If enough of a complaint arises by, hypothetically speaking, popular petition, the details can be released(prematurely) and decision voted on with higher than simple majority requirements to be overturned. This could also help as a check against removal on whimsical grounds.
- Transcripts of rulings be released periodically within reason in a pinned and locked thread. 📚(?)
This to be just for bans in which it be deemed necessary. Exception for bots, site ownership dictate, are reasons that could be viewed as lacking necessity of a trial for time reasons fmpov.
This would give a valuable record of sorts, of precedent for decision making, that could be reserved and referred to for any conspiratorial complaints ive seen floating about👾
The specifics would of course need to be worked out 🤔. And this just if the idea is worth serious consideration.
amd i would even say the trials be for "popular" users either. Just that there be a case presented in complaint, a capable defense, and a clearly reasoned and consistent judgement therein.
*the trials need not be just for *popular* users. A petition for a trial by popular vote, could also in turn spur a trial if one was deemed unnecessary. Or a petition for a trial could be a lower requirement than for trial by popular vote 👏
A nice balance fmpov and one that adds a little spice 🔥
-->
@Buddamoose
I think that process is overly complicated.
The mods should be allowed to collect evidence, which must, of course, include given the member in question the opportunity to explain themselves or offer some sort of defense to the mods. But, there doesn't need to be trial. Once the mods have collected and weighed the evidence, they should make the decision for themselves. Max has always done that, and has always given people the opportunity to dispute allegations he's made against them, whether those defenses were made in public or in private. This process is fair, simple, and direct.
I absolutely oppose trials and petitions re: bans. Moderating should not be an exercise in democracy--contrary to popular belief. There are excellent reasons why should not put judicial verdicts to popular vote.
-->
@Buddamoose
The problem with Trials is that they are likely to become kangaroo courts and/or popularity contests, rather than fair and reasoned assessments of the facts. If the site disliked a particular user, that user faces a greater risk of being banned than a well-liked one, even if they are guilty of the same offense. What's more, popularity contests are more likely to result in false guilty verdicts or wrongful acquittals because the verdict isn't being rendered primarily on the facts, but instead on other, social factors. This renders sites on sites like this, which have their factions and social animosities, highly unlikely to ever serve well the interests of justice and fairness.
To this line of reasoning, Smithers, in another thread where this had come up, responded with the following:
The health and interests of the community are best represented by the community themselves. If the person on the chopping block is a much loved member of the community and everyone wants them around, what's the point in banning them? We don't stand to gain anything from it.
This was my reply (with edits for concision):
The interests of fairness are best served by an impartial moderator who can make decisions separate from the community. Moderators rarely ban much-loved members. If a much-loved member is banned for some offense, it is most likely to be a non-trivial one, like doxxing or severely bullying. That is because even if a moderator is generally insulated from needing to curry favor with the community, if they stray too far away from what they community will tolerate, they will lose the legitimacy needed to do their job and face replacement by the site owner. A non-trivial offense should result in a banning, whether or not the community wants them banned, because of the real-life harms such inappropriate behavior could result in.
Trials are a total non-starter. They do not deserve serious consideration, and should not, under any circumstances, be implemented on this site or on DDO.
-->
@bsh1
Moderating should not be an exercise in democracy--contrary to popular belief. There are excellent reasons why should not put judicial verdicts to popular vote.
I don't disagree with there not being excellent reasons, and as to my position as a whole. I think most power should be in the hands of the moderators. Who is on that team could be democratic, it could be by site ownership decision, that doesn't matter to me. But once in that position they stay there until they leave that position by choice fmpov, and have at least a reasonable degree of transparency and consistency.
My proposal of a popular overrule is more a check on that power, than a want to see moderators potentially ousted on whim. And such a measure(popular overrule of banning) would need be a process with a high bar to accomplish fmpov.
This would also appease discontent towards moderators as well imho, quelling many conspiratorial opinions.
*many in advance. And arguments for popular overrule of a ban for a debate and forum site are just as compelling fmpov. If a popular enough user is banned, or a string are, that could drive other users off the site as well.
Users are lifeblood, and decisions that would inhibit the overall growth of the userbase in such a manner have a latent mechanism in place to override. 🤔
-->
@Buddamoose
As I said in my earlier post:
I would suggest that for any individual to be perma-banned or temp-banned for more than 3 months, both mods would have to agree. For temp-bans of 3 months or less, I think it would be sufficient for the chief mod to approve them on his/her own.
I think this is probably the only "check" that would be appropriate, namely because the overrule process you talk about still runs into the same problems I identified above. For example, supposed I doxxed someone. Could the site overrule my ban, despite the egregious nature of my conduct? Presumably, you'd say "no," implying either that some offenses should be un-overruleable (and then we get into the thorny issues of which offenses are those) or that the final say really shouldn't rest in the hands of the community at-large.
-->
@bsh1
(stuff)...final say really shouldn't rest in the hands of the community at-large.
I see ur point actually. Perhaps an appeal process? But an appeal to re-review with perhaps a new case. BUT, if the re-review is upheld, its final 🤔🙊
*re-review with a new argument presented on behalf of the banned user?*
-->
@Buddamoose
I think a re-review would be a bit redundant, if only because the same mods that came to the first conclusion would be conducting the re-review, but, I mean, I guess if someone wants the mods to take a second look at their case, okay...as long as that's not up to the public to determine.
-->
@Lunatic
Perhaps he forgot to tell you as you guys played WoW together yesterday
That was an HOUR ago, not yesterday.
So he didn't know he would return as mod and be reinstating accounts until an hour ago? You said he had resigned.
Juggle just barely unbanned all the accounts they banned yesterday. You trying to cite this to back up a point you made yesterday is hilarious though lol.
I'm doing nothing of the sort. I told you he was still Mod yesterday and you claimed to know him and that he had resigned. That was a lie.
No, signing on as AirMax, site moderator, asking for and reactivating closed accounts doesn't mean he is back to actively moderating.Regardless, this post doesn't mean he is back to actively moderating
Thanks Lunatic. In think I can close this one.
-->
@bsh1
+1I absolutely oppose trials and petitions re: bans. Moderating should not be an exercise in democracy--contrary to popular belief. There are excellent reasons why should not put judicial verdicts to popular vote.
The tendency to make moderation politically correct is a recipe to failure.
-->
@bsh1
I also feel you aren't factoring in the site purpose itself
The site itself is a place intended to foster intellectual and rational debate. How do you propose a website that adjudicates from on high with no feasible recourse against, potential harmful to welfare as a whole, bans, not consequentially lose userbase growth and/or begin to shrink?
A group of intellectual debaters not having a reasonable check against potential moderator abuses seems a recipe for disaster. One that can be held to neither foster usergrowth, or an atmosphere of intellectual diversity 🤔
And moderator decisions when exclusively their own, should not preclude any independent examination. Again
>Intellectual and rational debaters
>Sit down and shut up, you get no recourse
Pick one, cause you can't have both
The possibility of a kangaroo court in overrule can have reasonable checks in place put against. Reasonable checks being placed on potential abuses isnt foolish imho, and those checks if implemented constructively, would sufficiently prevent this concern of overrule by way of whim, while also simultaneously addressing the concern of abuse to power as your system creates the inherent potentiality of.
To state, nobody knows why Rational was banned here. Site ownership acted unilaterally in doing so and that is their legal right. Site onwership can make moderators unilateral decision makers if they so choose.
If it is up to users to decide course of moderation though, to whatever degree that priviledge may be afforded, i respectfully disagree with your estimation that the potential harms of a kangaroo court in any decisive way outweigh potential harms in abuse to potential unchecked powers so as to justify unilateral decision making abilities with zero checks to said power being afforded to the general populace as a whole. 🤔
Idk why the quote box was still there on the first post. I hit it by accident and thought I removed it 🙊
Also the spectrum here seems to be aligning this way
Popular Control<------>Unilateral Control
Pure popular control is absurd for your previous reasons. Unilateral Moderator Control fmpov is equally as absurd. The center to me would be encapsulated in these opposite opinions:
Term limits <-----------> No limits
Popular election <------------> unilateral appointment
Popular Jurisprudence <---------> unilateral jurisprudence.
I disagree with term limits, an argument against which you put forth as well as it could be said.
I disagree with popular election, site ownership should have original jurisdiction, so at most a closed election involving those they wish to include.
The only realm of jurisprudence I'm taking issue with is in permanent bans. Only in permanent bans would I hold records of adjudication are released. Only in permanent bans would I hold petitions:
- be permissed to mandate adjudication
- be permissed to mandate a process for popular overrule.
But these checks be purposely made reasonably difficult to obtain so as to further safeguard these checks from popular whim, and rather derive from good reason. That being a users, or string of users, removal that is so unpopular as to create a distinct potentiality of inhibiting the growth or drastically shrink the sites userbase as a whole.
Should we not adjudicate in a manner that balances:
Fostering diversity of thought
Fostering site growth/membership
Terms of Service
Ownership interest
Ownership interests taking primary precedence, Terms of Service being secondary, the other two being equal in weight tertiary considerations. What other considerations can you think of? How would you order such considerations? 🤔
-->
@ethang5
Correct, he actually had to email Juggle to unban him, since they mistakenly closed hundreds of legitimate accounts. Airmax now has to unban all the non spam accounts as they are linked to him. Your argument is so weak here buddy. You are trying to say that because Max occasionally has use use his admin abilities from time to time to stop damage control that he has some obligation to stay on the site and actively admin. He doesn't. Especially at the extent that the website is no longer enjoyable to him. He owes the site nothing.So he didn't know he would return as mod and be reinstating accounts until an hour ago? You said he had resigned.
I'm doing nothing of the sort. I told you he was still Mod yesterday and you claimed to know him and that he had resigned. That was a lie.
I do know him, it is not a lie. Why don't you join a hangout with us later and Max can verbally prove it? I already offered that once, which you refused, because we both know that your are manipulative and trying to spin your little fairytale that Max is an evil douche bag because you will not be proved wrong, even though you consistently fair to substantiate your opinion.
No, signing on as AirMax, site moderator, asking for and reactivating closed accounts doesn't mean he is back to actively moderating. Thanks Lunatic. In think I can close this one.
Exactly. Occasionally using mod abilities does not mean he owes the site anything. Your attempt at sarcasm is actually a point against you but you fail to see it lol.
-->
@1harderthanyouthink
Really? Never saw any modding on his part.
-->
@Smithereens
Airmax could have gotten the current site he is mod on under control and didn't. Don't blame the religion forum or it's members for that.
-->
@Lunatic
Do you think just anyone has access to a moderator account?
You said he had resigned. He had not. The closed accounts are not "connected to him". He just has admin rights to open those accounts. He has
I spoke to Airmax today. The childish taunts of being afraid or having an agenda are below you. Re-activating closed accounts is an admin function.
No site would allow someone who " owes them nothing" to have access to their admin functions. There is no need to be so dramatic. Max is not evil or a douchebag. He just did not moderate very well.
Do you think just anyone has access to a moderator account?You said he had resigned. He had not. The closed accounts are not "connected to him". He just has admin rights to open those accounts. He has
The whole stem of your complaints is that he isn't doing enough. He obviously still has admin abilities, but doesn't use them as frequently as he once did because the site was left to hell by the developers. He doesn't owe the site the activity you think he does, this was always a hobby for him. Not a paid position. Your claim that people left because of the moderator is completely untrue. Maybe it's the reason you left, but if it is, it's a piss poor reason. More likely you came here because the spam, and are using Max as a scapegoat to blame your problems on. That's fine, your poorly formed and badly substantiated opinion of him is shadowed by the horde of other members who respected Max for everything he did for the site over the years.
I spoke to Airmax today. The childish taunts of being afraid or having an agenda are below you.
Did you ask him if I knew him? These aren't taunts, you are literally calling me a liar and saying I don't know him.
Re-activating closed accounts is an admin function.
Duh, what's your point?
No site would allow someone who " owes them nothing" to have access to their admin functions.
Juggle did. They didn't want to do the work so they were lucky Max enough was kind enough to do it for them for free for all these years. Max owes nothing to us, or them, and can stop moderating at anytime he pleases.
Max is not evil or a douchebag. He just did not moderate very well.
And you continuously fail to make a good case for this, so you are done I think. If you decide you actually want to back this up, feel free to challenge me to debate on this, we can go over all the evidence and let the voters decide.