Moderators seem biased and shifting rules?

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

So the latest ruling is it is OK to call someone a "racist" because racist is a professional term.

Moron is a professional term as well, can I call someone a moron if I believe they are one based on their posts?

Or is this simply moderators trying to explain away a bias? After all, it doesn't really make sense that a personal attack only occurs if the insulting term used isn't professional. That seems silly, doesn't it?

Perhaps, to keep the appearance of bias out of moderator rulings, the site needs to define personal attack rather than trying to use suck silly twists of logic to explain away what appears to be shifting standards of moderation.

That is my suggestion.

[Nitrus]

I admit, I am having trouble explaining to you what is the difference between a blatant personal attack and someone who is expressing a valid opinion of someone else.

I have told you that each individual will be judged independently. Your not making it any easier by claiming that the moderation here is biased.

I am sorry if i was unclear and therefore have come across as biased etc. but I am doing the best that I can in judging whether a comment warrants a warning or not.

Please try to understand that it is very hard to judge each individual comment so as not to be unfair or seem biased, I try to treat each member the same when it comes to moderating.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

Excuse me for not seeing it as hard. Your last explanation that "racist" is a profession term and therefor OK to use makes no sense. It is still an insult to call someone a racist and to compare them to hitler.

Also, there are lots of professional terms that are insulting, Moron is one, I hardly think you really mean that calling someone a moron is OK. Do you really want a list of profession insults that are OK?

As far as being biased, how can you honestly expect me to believe you aren't when you constantly shift explanations of why something isn't a personal attack. Honestly, doesn't it look like you made the ruling first, and attempted to justify it after? Doesn't that seem to imply bias? It does to me.

You, as a moderator, should be able to clearly explain your actions. If "I think you are a racist" is not a personal insult, then I want to know why, and have the answer be consistant for all posters. That doesn't seem that much to ask.

[Cobra]

Of course the moderation here is biased, all sites are. People are biased and those biases come out. This place does a pretty good job of keeping them off the surface tho. That's why it rocks.

I bet I'd even be warned for callin Flea a whiney bitch just tryin to stir a little drama though it would happen to show a lack of bias because if the mods were really out to get flea they'd let it slide. Sayin such a thing would be both an insult and not a professional term but it would be my opinion and I believe it's a valid one so we may need a debate and clarification first before the inevitable warning. This could get interesting, this place really needs some more drama on the boards. It's hardly exciting at all for the people on the outside.

[Elrathin]

Flea is just pissed cause he comes here to stir stuff up and doesn't debate and when he gets called on it, he runs away for a few weeks.

Moderators do fine here and I get my fair share of warnings as well.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

because if the mods were really out to get flea they'd let it slide.


Mods are letting personal attacks against me slide, and giving me warnings for things that didn't break the rules.

It's not too much in my opinion to ask for even moderation.

[Cobra]

Mods are letting personal attacks against me slide, and giving me warnings for things that didn't break the rules.

Ever think it's because you're annoying them and they don't think your complaints are all that valid. Mods are people, that's how people are. Except they have some power over your forum experience and it's almost impossible to win the type of battle your waging against them over there moderation unless of course this forum turns out to be way different then all the others I've been on in the past. It's fun to try though.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

Ever think it's because you?re annoying them


You ever think I am annoying them because they have shown blatent bias multiple times already, times that are not visible to you yet but will be when I can reproduce some past PM's?

Don't you think I deserve a clear answer, instead of "it's an opinion, no wait, it's a professional term, no wait, ask me again and I'll give you a warning, no wait..."

Also, Mods shouldn't rule based on being annoyed, they should rule base on a clear and consistant set of rules. That's my opinion anyway, if yours is different please explain.

[Cobra]

Also, Mods shouldn't rule based on being annoyed, they should rule base on a clear and consistant set of rules. That's my opinion anyway, if yours is different please explain.

Oh that's my opinion too, it's just not normally reality or the way things go.

[Cobra]

Don't you think I deserve a clear answer, instead of "it's an opinion, no wait, it's a professional term, no wait, ask me again and I'll give you a warning, no wait..."
Lol, they didn't just tell you to fuck off. That's what coulda happened, wait till lab gets here to sort it all out. Shouldn't be too long. Then tell me what happens if possible. I may be proven wrong and he agrees with you on this one.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

Lol, they didn't just tell you to fuck off. That's what coulda happened


That's basically what did happen, then alonzo claims I abused the reporting system in the past.

Hopefully the truth of that can come out with PM's from that time.

[AlonzoMourning23]

Lol, they didn't just tell you to fuck off. That's what coulda happened, wait till lab gets here to sort it all out. Shouldn't be too long. Then tell me what happens if possible. I may be proven wrong and he agrees with you on this one.


I'm more than happy to accomodate his reports if they're valid, it's just, by and large, they're not valid reports.

If we were out to get flea would we have acted on one of his recent reports? He reported me and, after discussing it, I ended up with a small warning. But we read the post repeatedly and even then only one of us found a problem with it. Yet we still issued a warning.

Oh, and I checked the staff records. The previous poster who had an issue with reports was dhard, not flea.

[Cobra]

If we were out to get flea would we have acted on one of his recent reports? He reported me and, after discussing it, I ended up with a small warning. But we read the post repeatedly and even then only one of us found a problem with it. Yet we still issued a warning.
Nope, he has you there flea.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

Oh, and I checked the staff records. The previous poster who had an issue with reports was dhard, not flea.


Isn't that interesting, and convenient. So I assume you didn't realize this when you made your untruthful public charge against me?

Isn't it also interesting that this follows reporting you for a post that I did feel met the same standard as posts I had been warned on in the past?

And now I have a warning that doesn't match any rule. Interesting.

Also, more to the point, calling me a racist is within the rules, also interesting.

Why don't we have a public review of all reported posts, which ones received warnings, which ones didn't, and why? That way we can clear up this bias issue, and show if your post that you got a warning for actually did meet the same standard that moderators give warnings for.

Also I would still like to make PM's public, even though alonzo admitted what he said about me being warned about abusing the report system was not true, I would like to show where I received a warning where I felt the other party had been far worse, and lily replied basically that she didn't see his posts because they were not reported. Obviously at that point I started reporting posts that seem to violate rules in the same way I was getting warnings for.

Also I would like to make public another PM exchange, which I won't bring up for now other than to say it has some bearing on this issue.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

If we were out to get flea would we have acted on one of his recent reports? He reported me and, after discussing it, I ended up with a small warning. But we read the post repeatedly and even then only one of us found a problem with it. Yet we still issued a warning.

Nope, he has you there flea.


How so? We just found out his earlier claim that I was abusing the reporting system was false. Why don't we examine this claim now? Did he mention the report was denied, the moderator said it wasn't worth a warning, but I forwarded it that to Labrocca he decided it was worth a warning?

Alonzo can claim anything when it hidden, lets make all warnings public so that we can see things are judged fairly, and evenly. Maybe alonzo didn't deserve the warning, compared to other posts that got them? An open, public moderator action review can settle that, right, as well as stop these claims.

[Cobra]

Why don't we have a public review of all reported posts, which ones received warnings, which ones didn't, and why? That way we can clear up this bias issue, and show if your post that you got a warning for actually did meet the same standard that moderators give warnings for.
Good idea, except it'll never happen and people would just side with the people they like more so you still prolly wouldn't win your case if you ain't popular. So which posts was this anyway so I can know what we're all discussing.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

This is the one I reported:

http://www.democracyforums.com/showthread.php?tid=2645&pid=28725#pid28725

For contrast, this is a post I received an official warning for:

http://www.democracyforums.com/showthread.php?tid=2016&pid=20688#pid20688

All I am looking for is some consistency. With permission I will post Nitro's reply to my report of alonzo's post, explaining why he felt it wasn't a personal attack.

[Nitrus]

For the record I warned you on that post beacause it was the last post of yours in the thread the YOU reported me for.

The warning was not about that post in particular, it was simply the quickest way to find the warn button.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

For the record I warned you on that post beacause it was the last post of yours in the thread the YOU reported me for.

The warning was not about that post in particular, it was simply the quickest way to find the warn button.


Well then lets post the PM's, posts the posts I reported you for, post whatever post it was you reported me for, and you can get it all out in the open.

[Nitrus]

This is what I PM'ed you when you reported alonzo.

You made a report against Alonzomourning23.

This report said:

"Personal Attack, i am neither a joke or insane."

After studying the thread, I have come to decide that this was not a personal attack and that you seem to have overracted a little.

From what I can see, he used the word "insane" in the context of someone saying something silly or otherwise, he was probably speaking light-heartedly.

As a Member of Staff, I cannot warn others at the same level of authority as myself. If you still feel that you were attacked, then please by all means do the following:

PM Labrocca
Quote the post and your post before it.
Explain the situation.
PM alonzo'
Ask him what he meant by it.
Explain that you felt hurt by it.
He may apologise.

I hope I have helped.

This is what I PM'ed you when I warned you for abusing the reporting system.

The Staff Members, will judge EACH individual comment, and decided whether said comment warrants a warning or not.

It is not for you to judge whether what you are saying is an insult or not, it is up to the Staff and the Member who you insulted.

I have warned you for reporting a post that is not breaking the rules.


I hope this clears things up a tad. I regard my first PM as completely reasonable.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

I hope this clears things up a tad. I regard my first PM as completely reasonable.


I consider neither one reasonable in light of what I have been warned for in the past, if you check that second link. Alonzo's post certainly seemed to be as much of a personal insult as that post, a post I got a warning for, and I don't belief for an instant if I replied to this with the same phrase, that "I can't decide if you are a joke or insane", that you wouldn't warn me on it, probably at a much higher percentage than alonzo got after you refused to consider his personal insult against me.

Furthermore, the warning you did give me is completely bogus, it isn't a reason listed under official warnings, it didn't break any rules, and it seems to me it was a revenge warning for me going over your head when you ignored alonzo's clear violation, and for questioning why you then ignored the personal insult of me being called a racist.

[Nitrus]

I started the thread in the Staff area to address the alonzo post, after I had sent you the PM, I did this to make sure that everything was above board, appropriate action was taken.

If you had posted "I cant decided whether your a joke or insane" i wouldnt have warned you, as he is stating something he is thinking of, not directly insulting you.

alonzo later said that he thought you were a joke account, which often occurs on the internet. He was warned anyway, to keep everyone happy, and to make sure noone thought that the moderators get away with stuff.

Hell, i will probably be warned for this discussion.

I warned you for abuse of the reporting system, if Labrocca wants to change it then thats totally up to him, but I refuse to continue this discussion and give you the attention that you crave. Bottom line, you have been warned and cant accept it, so you started ranting.

I refuse to engage in discussion with you any longer.

Good day.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

alonzo later said that he thought you were a joke account


If alonzo said that he lied, like he did when he claimed I had been warned in the past for abusing the reporting system, he knows me and has has lost several debates to me.

Regardless, I can't decide if you are a moron (nice professional word that) or a liar when you say that phrasing isn't a personal insult.

[Labrocca]

Alright...my turn.

FBM...as the owner of the site and leader of the staff I want to apologize to you for this mess.Â*Â*Nitrus took a couple months off and the site has grown.Â*Â*In his absense I believe the other staff has grown as moderators while he is still inexperienced.Â*Â*I think Nitrus is a good staff member but has more to learn and experience.

However that being said.Â*Â*You don't make it easier for any of us.Â*Â*You don't need to make a public spectacle of the situation and a PM to me would have been enough.Â*Â*I along with Zo first assumed that the reported post problem was you..but upon searching I realized it was Dhard as well.Â*Â*It's an honest mistake from the staff.

Now to the crux of the matter.Â*Â*Let's examine 2 statements.

1. You're a racist.
2. You have racists views or opinions.

Which of those is a personal attack?Â*Â*Yes..you guessed it..#1.Â*Â*I do agree with you that being called a racist is a form of a personal attack and in the manner which Nitrus used it was intended to be so.Â*Â*Because of this he will get a few warning points.

In the past mods could not warn mods...I am not sure if Nitrus was aware of this change.

I have also removed the 1% warning you recieved for reporting abuse ONLY because it's not a listed rule.Â*Â*When dhard was abusing the system I gave him a PM warning him not to do so and you were not given that warning.Â*Â*However I do think you are being petty over a very small warning. I do believe Nitrus had good intentions when he gave it to you.

I must also say that I see no BIAS in the staff.Â*Â*The staff continues to grow as a team.Â*Â*We have discussions openly about problems and how to solve them.Â*Â*We do work together and it's not a political issue...it's a site issue. Alonzo has been an excellent staffer and Lily is coming along very well. Please don't target these 2 simply because they are on the other side of the political isle. In my view they have proven they can be fair as moderators.

I will keep this thread open if you or others wish to make comment.Â*Â*However please be civil and let's try to move on and get past this incident.Â*Â*Drama is bound to pop up here but let's keep it to a minimal please.

I hope you find my decision fair.

Thank you,
Jesse

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

Here are the comments I have to this:

First are the two apparent lies by alonzo, publicly saying I had been previously warned about my reporting posts, and telling nitro I was a joke login. Both are to me signs of a definite bias and malice that I see in your mods.

Secondly is this new claim by you that I report posts that don't have rules violations. This is a post I got a warning for that you upheld:



Why would you want to do something in public that is widely seen as vulgar in the first place?


Obviously it seems to relate to being a democrat in this case. Both for this bus driver and for ECW.


Now, according to you that post deserved that I get warned. Lily gave me a warning for it, I appealed to you and you upheld it. If I report posts, they have to me at least this much personal attack in them.

If you disagree, then lets do a complete public review of what posts have gotten warnings and what posts have not, lets look at what I reported in detail and I'll tell you exactly how I read the personal attack in each one.

By publicly stating you instructed the mods to ignore my reports (funny how I got a warning for reporting a post even though they are ignoring them, lol) you are saying I make BS reports, I feel I should have a chance to respond with the evidence.

Lastly, I don't attack alfonzo and lily because they are liberals, I attack them, alfonso in particular because they let their liberal bias effect their moderation. I am willing to go in depth with this as well, openly with all PM's and reported posts in the open.

I don't expect this will be taken seriously, you don't have anything to gain by such an open review and obviously you are going to back your choice for mods right or wrong. Nitro was a mistake IMHO, he lacks the judgement a mod should have.

[Cobra]

I don't expect this will be taken seriously, you don't have anything to gain by such an open review and obviously you are going to back your choice for mods right or wrong.
I don't know, ya did pretty good. Got the warning removed and everything. You wont get that at most boards.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

Well, Labrocca himself said warning points don't amount to a hill of beans.

I would rather get an honest answer as to alonzo's false claims that I am a joke login (told to Nitro apparantly when I reported alonzo's personal attack, a false claim that nitro himself took into account as if it was true), and alonzo's post that I had been warned for abusing the reporting system (which I had not).

[Labrocca]

I gave Alonzo a 3% warning yesterday for his flame comment to you. I gave Nitro a 3% warning today for flaming you.

Also...you have ZERO warning points outstanding in your account. I don't see your objective to bring up old points given. If you want to somehow begin an arguement about objectivity you will lose since this is my site and I don't have to be objective although I try very hard.

I do believe I took your threads and PM's seriously enough to apologize to you in public for the mess. If you don't want to accept the apology and move on that's your problem not mine.

I stated my opinions about Nitrus and admitted his inexperience. However his position here will be decided by ME not you!

Also I never stated to the staff to ignore your warnings. Zo and I seperately just thought it was you that had a problem earlier but it was dhard. Zo and I didn't discuss this beforehand. We just both made the same error.

I am not sure what you goal is here. Both mods were given warning points. Your point was removed. I have apologized on behalf of the staff. Nitrus will remain a moderator. Lily at first had issues as well but has grown tremendously as a staffer. I have the same faith in Nitrus that given time and experience he can be just as objective in his duties here.

I know you like to debate FBM...we all do..but debate an issue..don't debate the debates.

Inevitibly everyone here at DF will gain a few warning points. Consider them war wounds. To get overly excited about it imho is a bit silly. No one is banning you FBM. Even moderators are getting warning points. I have basically instructed staff to minimize points between 1-10%...many times just 1% is enough to remind the member to stay within site guidelines. We often give 3-5% for regular rule breakers that know the rules well enough. I also raised the deletion rate from 1/2 percent per day to a full 1 percent per day. So warnings have even less sting to them. Even a 5% warning will be gone within a week if you don't gain more. The system requires 100% warning to get a ban and first time ban is a measly 3 days. Only 1 person has achieved such status (lovely_brunette_girl) and eventually I just perma banned her since she had no interest in obeying the site rules.

First are the two apparent lies by alonzo, publicly saying I had been previously warned about my reporting posts, and telling nitro I was a joke login. Both are to me signs of a definite bias and malice that I see in your mods.

Again..let me be clear. I apoligized for error 1 which was that you were the person previously warned for reporting posts too often. And I gave Nitro a stern conversation about him calling you a joke login. It's all been covered I believe.

Anything else you want to add?

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

I accept the apology and I apologize as well. I can see where a mistake was made confusing me with another poster, and it is unfortunate that happened or that I got wound up up over a string of little things.

I still think you need some balance in the moderation team, a good right winger (and no I am not applying, I don't want to be a mod).

[Cobra]

Boogyman is pretty rightwing they have him.

[Labrocca]

OK great...

I am locking this now since I feel all discussion has been covered.

Peace.