Timeline for Is there going to be a process around hellbanning?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
32 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 4, 2011 at 19:52 | comment | added | Billy ONeal | @jcolebrand: Okay, whatever. If you want to put words in my mouth, and then judge what I say based not on what I say, but what you said I said, so be it. I'm done. That way lies insanity. | |
| Jun 4, 2011 at 19:50 | comment | added | jcolebrand | @BillyOneal Well as you can see, I disagree. I think that you're asking for moderators to be stripped of all their power, one step at a time. That's not what you're saying, and I realize that, except for this: history.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/niem.htm ~~ Feel free to dislike me etc. I did think you presented your case well. | |
| Jun 4, 2011 at 19:47 | comment | added | Billy ONeal | @jcolebrand: I believe the feature has been proposed and devised. That's Jeff's blog post. I'm not saying there's no way for a mod to make a rational decision on their own. I'm saying it's possible for them to make an irrational decision on their own. It's possible if there are two or more too of course, but much less likely. I'm not saying any existing feature or moderator tool should change, merely that if the proposed new feature is implemented, because it is not transparent, it needs stronger checks in place. | |
| Jun 4, 2011 at 19:43 | comment | added | jcolebrand | @BillyONeal Making an outright requirement for a non-implemented feature to determine and dictate the behavior and method of doing something before the feature has been proposed or devised is a form of micromanagement. Yes it's also a form of discussion on the component beforehand, but you are saying that there's no way for a mod to make a rational decision on their own. You're determining what the person is capable of long before they've been given that opportunity on their own. You're ignoring all the existing countermeasures in place to prevent "mod abuse". Therefore, I disagree. | |
| Jun 4, 2011 at 19:40 | comment | added | Billy ONeal | @jcolebrand: I don't believe I said I wanted to micromanage mods anywhere. Just that the proposed hellbanning needs to be confirmed by at least two people. Don't lump me in with Gens' moderator points plan thing. I don't agree with that either. | |
| Jun 4, 2011 at 19:31 | comment | added | jcolebrand | @Billy @BillT @Gens @Lance @Robery so we're clear, I'm all for hellbanning being something the dev team has to carry on their own, meaning, don't make it a mod tool. The devs have enough to worry about without looking on individual sites for malicious users, so it would be the case of the moderator having to provide evidence to the devs of reason for hellbanning. That requires a valid argument and a strong case. Ergo, I'm not just saying "hell yes let's hellban everyone" but I'm saying ffs quit trying to micromanage the moderators. Go get elected yourself and participate as a mod. | |
| Jun 4, 2011 at 19:26 | comment | added | Bill the Lizard Mod | @Billy: I'd be in favor of getting at least one other moderator's consent before hellbanning someone. It's an extreme form of suspension, and I don't think it's too much to ask us to at least confer with other moderators before using it. If Jeff decides to go ahead with hellbanning, I'll make this a feature request. | |
| Jun 4, 2011 at 19:13 | comment | added | Lance Roberts | @jcolebrand, he's not bikeshedding, there have been plenty of examples in the past, most of which can't even be shown because they've been deleted off the site (rightly so). Please don't try to derail his point, by asking for specifics, when his point is general. Address the general concept. And of course this is a conversation about proposed future actions, so there can be no examples. | |
| Jun 4, 2011 at 19:12 | comment | added | Billy ONeal | @jcolebrand: I can't show a case of abuse of a system that has yet to be implemented. (And even if the system were to be implemented, there'd be no way for me to show that abuse, because the system by design hides the fact that it's in use from everyone) | |
| Jun 4, 2011 at 19:11 | comment | added | Lance Roberts | @robert, I was only pointing out that you don't have to have specific examples to talk about the general concepts. In regards to that other question, it's sad it was closed just because people disagree with it, downvoting should have been sufficient. I don't understand people who just want to shut down discussion (which isn't referring to you). | |
| Jun 4, 2011 at 19:10 | comment | added | Billy ONeal | @jcolebrand: The difference between this scenario and the President of the United States is that everyone knows (or has a means of knowing, if they wish) the decisions the POTUS makes. Nobody even is aware of the decisions under the proposed hellbanning system. Just because you're generally elected by the community, or generally trusted, does not mean that you are infallible. | |
| Jun 4, 2011 at 19:08 | comment | added | jcolebrand | @BillyONeal I agree with the other mods. Show us a case of where this has been abused and that something needs to change and we'll be all for the change. And for ousting the roundabout. But you're not. You're bike-shedding. So stop. | |
| Jun 4, 2011 at 19:08 | comment | added | jcolebrand | @BillyONeal know what the best way to determine who will be presiden is in the US? To ensure that everyone you can reach out to is voting the way you are. Know how you can influence the mods who are on meta and make sure that only ones that you trust are elected? | |
| Jun 4, 2011 at 19:06 | comment | added | Billy ONeal | @jcolebrand: That is sometimes the case (that things are discussed among mods beforehand) -- however at present time that is not enforced. There's nothing stopping a moderator from just suspending someone they don't like. Luckily for us, they generally don't, but I'm a fan of the system enforcing things where it's simple to do. | |
| Jun 4, 2011 at 19:05 | comment | added | jcolebrand | @BillyONeal my point is don't criticize that only one person may be doing the banning, as all those bans are then reviewed, and often the person doing the banning has consulted with ten or more mods before such a ban is put in place. | |
| Jun 4, 2011 at 19:04 | comment | added | user102937 | @Lance: Gens refers to a question that speaks, not about principles of moderation, but about regulating moderators. I have no problem with regulations, if that's what we need. But I don't think we need them. We already have several safety valves in place, including meta. | |
| Jun 4, 2011 at 19:03 | comment | added | Billy ONeal | @jcolebrand: I'm confused. What's your point here? | |
| Jun 4, 2011 at 19:03 | comment | added | jcolebrand | ... policy). Additionally, as was pointed out, these banned users are visible to all mods on a site, so all actions are questionable, even if the questioning audience is smaller. Granted, that group is much more interested in making sure that the right things are done, because the collective reputation rides on the decisions of the individual. | |
| Jun 4, 2011 at 19:02 | comment | added | jcolebrand | @BillyONeal @Gens Have you ever considered a career in law enforcement via election? There's something to be said about being elevated into a position of power by the community. You not only know that there is a bit of public review on everything you do, but there is also the matter of having to do the thing that you are elected to do. ~~ Aside from all that, consider this: the moderators do discuss these things, and for situations of individual members, there are discussions held behind closed doors (there is a valid reason for having private discussions on individuals as opposed to group ... | |
| Jun 4, 2011 at 18:58 | comment | added | Lance Roberts | @Robert, it's not pointless to talk about general concepts. You don't need a specific case, to talk about the general. | |
| Jun 4, 2011 at 18:54 | comment | added | Billy ONeal | @Bill the Lizard: I see. The existing measures in place do make me sleep a bit more soundly, but I would feel better if two people had to acknowledge before something this drastic happened. I'm thinking along the lines of the "silence does not equal consent" rule. | |
| Jun 4, 2011 at 18:51 | comment | added | Billy ONeal | @Robert: It's that "generally reversed if there is a doubt" bit that I'm pointing out here. If nobody knows by the person who enacted the ban, then there's no doubt that can ever be had -- only the moderator knows! | |
| Jun 4, 2011 at 18:37 | comment | added | Bill the Lizard Mod | @Gens: I have no doubt that the majority are rational and smart, but most people aren't even aware of mod actions unless they're on the receiving end of them. | |
| Jun 4, 2011 at 18:37 | comment | added | user102937 | @Gens: Well, it's pointless to speak in generalities. If you have a specific issue with a moderator, raise it here on meta. That's how we resolve issues here. | |
| Jun 4, 2011 at 18:33 | comment | added | Predator | @Bill the Lizard: The score will be determined by SO community. And I believe majority of them are rational/smart enough to judge any mods actions. | |
| Jun 4, 2011 at 18:30 | comment | added | Predator | @Robert Harvey: Your mileage may vary. | |
| Jun 4, 2011 at 18:26 | comment | added | Bill the Lizard Mod | @Gens: I think every time I rightfully closed a question my PKI score would drop, making it a pretty worthless metric. I prefer to have open discussions about specific moderator behavior. | |
| Jun 4, 2011 at 18:24 | comment | added | user102937 | @Gens: Is that a problem that actually needs to be solved? I've been on SO for nearly three years now, as a normal community member and as a moderator, and I have yet to see a moderator perform a "wrong" action. I've seen disputed actions, but they are rare, and are generally reversed if there is a doubt. | |
| Jun 4, 2011 at 18:20 | comment | added | Predator | @Bill the Lizard: I mean implement a system to monitor mods behaviors and any wrong actions by them. That is more proactive. | |
| Jun 4, 2011 at 18:17 | comment | added | Bill the Lizard Mod | @Gens: There's nothing specific enough there that I can respond to. | |
| Jun 4, 2011 at 18:14 | comment | added | Predator | How about this: meta.stackexchange.com/questions/93786/… | |
| Jun 4, 2011 at 18:07 | history | answered | Bill the LizardMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |