A Buttery Pastry posted:

"The mod forum" is wherever mods post away from the prying eyes of other posters.

RealityWarCriminal posted:

cspam is good

Ardennes posted:

I actually don’t know if having mods coming in to QCS threads to troll was a smart move.

A Buttery Pastry posted:

It's smart if you want to derail threads and provide cover for an admin to close it, so you never have to deal with the issue that was brought up. It is 100% part of the moderator manual, because they do it basically in every thread. That, or they studiously ignore someone having a meltdown and use them as the excuse, rather than step in.

vyelkin posted:

I agree with this and please do not associate CSPAM mods with one D&D mod's bad decision to troll a QCS thread. imo QCS of all places should be a forum for mods to engage sincerely, and if they aren't going to do that they shouldn't engage there at all. I found it very frustrating that a D&D mod went into a QCS thread to poo poo up the place by misleading people about what politics moderation is currently like on this site.

Pablo Nergigante posted:

Andrew "Nice" Clay

euphronius posted:

6ers from IkS are fine . 6ers from mods and admins can be the start of a Ramp so are different entirely

Ardennes posted:

Yeah I don’t think CSpam was seriously involved, but I think it a more general sense it is a troubling dynamic. The thread was over a sixer, it wasn’t a super serious deal, but at the same time, it wasn’t helpful at a time when trust is low.

To spit it out, CSpam mods and posters seem to generally have a decent dynamic, the dynamic with D&D seems to be combative. The general point I have been driving at is it seems like an issue that is isn’t going away, and there needs to be a steps to keep it from boiling over it. Maybe it is too late for a buffer or any type of mediation?

copy posted:

i thought ramp was just a dnd thing and cspam didn't have an official ramp policy. Or am I wrong about that?

vyelkin posted:

I don't think we've intentionally ramped anybody in the past year

copy posted:

i thought ramp was just a dnd thing and cspam didn't have an official ramp policy. Or am I wrong about that?

euphronius posted:

I was speaking generally . I don’t know if cspam does that specifically

vyelkin posted:

I don't think we've intentionally ramped anybody in the past year

Azathoth posted:

There is no official ramp policy in C-SPAM but if someone is just plain awful, they're gonna get heavier probes for the same poo poo, on account of being just awful.

This is very much the exception to the norm, where even posters who get dinged more frequently don't necessarily end up with probes that are outside the norm, even for something they do frequently.

Shageletic posted:

Alec was awful and we're all better off that he's not here.

But he never did anything super bad. Just a general miasma of live journal-ing weirdness and just the worst sort of presence. If ramping is what took him out good

Azathoth posted:

they're gonna get heavier probes for the same poo poo, on account of being just awful.

Azathoth posted:

*cough*

Also, I do think Alec is illustrative here. The point of the increased probes and bans was to give him a chance to step back before the perma. He was told unequivocally that he needed to change or be perma'ed and he made his choice. Also, there's no like "probe ramp handbook" so when he was doing his poo poo, I was sorta flying by the seat of my pants as a new mod.

If the same thing were to happen to any other poster, I would hope that it would be made equally clear that they'd gotten to a point where either a perma is in their future or at least a ban+30 every time they gently caress up. It should go without saying that this is something extraordinary and not something that would be done to the worst of the worst.

If you're concerned that you're the worst of the worst, well maybe sit down and have a good think about how your posting led you to think that. Or PM me and we can discuss.

vyelkin posted:

I agree with this and please do not associate CSPAM mods with one D&D mod's bad decision to troll a QCS thread. imo QCS of all places should be a forum for mods to engage sincerely, and if they aren't going to do that they shouldn't engage there at all. I found it very frustrating that a D&D mod went into a QCS thread to poo poo up the place by misleading people about what politics moderation is currently like on this site.

i can tell you that mods don't do dumb poo poo out of some sinister hidden motive to give an admin cover to close a thread or not deal with an issue or something, admins are perfectly good at closing threads and not dealing with issues all on their own. mods do dumb poo poo because mods are dumbasses just like everyone else on this site and sometimes a mod gets the uncontrollable urge to troll people or make stupid jokes.

Personally I don't like it when mods do trolling where the whole basis of the troll is lying about what modding is like, because it's exploiting an imbalanced power dynamic where the target has no way to verify what the mod is saying and so either has to take it on faith that it's true or not true based on their current opinion of SA moderation. I think that's an unhealthy dynamic to encourage. I guess this is kind of like my general dislike of comedy sixers in serious forums because the whole joke underlying a comedy sixer is that a mod has some tiny amount of power and can use it arbitrarily. I'm all for mods being as close to regular posters as possible, and part of what that means to me is not abusing the tiny amount of power an internet janitor has, which means not lying about things other posters can't see no matter how funny you might think it would be in the moment.

vyelkin posted:

Alec made vlogs while driving with his kid in the backseat, and posted other things that made it clear he valued internet clout more than the safety and security of his own children. Even without the divorced dad energy and weird obsession with being the main character of the trump thread, he did more than enough super bad things to be permabanned.

KirbyKhan posted:

I should clarify "bad ramp". It was bad because the delays in cutting dude off caused posting damage or whatever you would call New Years. But also also also extenuating circumstances and regime change and internet posts so like...

A Buttery Pastry posted:

Just want to say I appreciate this post, and I do see C-SPAM mods be way better in recent times than they used to be, and than is the rule for mods coming from other forums. I do wonder though if you would not be better off more clearly drawing a line between you and other mods when they start acting like idiots in QCS, actively calling them out for making poo poo worse. Historically, mods that do that basically become QCS darlings, and that'd certainly be a change from the reputation C-SPAM mods had like a year ago or whatever.

A Buttery Pastry posted:

Did he post images/videos of his kids? I feel like that alone should be banworthy, though I wouldn't be opposed to a lot stricter rules about "self-doxxing" either.

Azathoth posted:

The C-SPAM mods shouldn't be expected to answer for the conditions of D&D so I'd prefer not to discuss D&D moderation here but as an admin, I don't want to be dismissive of it. Have you tried discussing your concerns with Koos?

vyelkin posted:

In principle I have no problem with mods calling each other out if they're acting dumb in QCS but I personally tend not to check that forum very often unless I know there's an active thread about CSPAM. Most QCS threads are about other stuff that I don't have anything to do with and usually I'd rather just leave those to the admins and mods of the relevant forums.

vyelkin posted:

He posted both photos and videos with his kids in them. I can only speak for myself but that was one of the big things that convinced me he was a bad poster that should be banned instead of just a weirdo who preferred making posts in vlog format. It was part of a consistent pattern of attention-seeking behaviour but it was the thing that made it really clear that he valued internet attention more than caring for his own family and well-being.

vyelkin posted:

Alec made vlogs while driving with his kid in the backseat, and posted other things that made it clear he valued internet clout more than the safety and security of his own children. Even without the divorced dad energy and weird obsession with being the main character of the trump thread, he did more than enough super bad things to be permabanned.

A Buttery Pastry posted:

Just want to say I appreciate this post, and I do see C-SPAM mods be way better in recent times than they used to be, and than is the rule for mods coming from other forums. I do wonder though if you would not be better off more clearly drawing a line between you and other mods when they start acting like idiots in QCS, actively calling them out for making poo poo worse. Historically, mods that do that basically become QCS darlings, and that'd certainly be a change from the reputation C-SPAM mods had like a year ago or whatever.

Ardennes posted:

It is less “calling to account” and more about the troubling dynamic between the two sub forums and in that sense I do think there is involvement without blame. Honestly, I don’t know what Koos could do on his own either, not so much about this specific example, but more the trend.

I guess it would be a QCS issue but yeah…

vyelkin posted:

I agree with this and please do not associate CSPAM mods with one D&D mod's bad decision to troll a QCS thread. imo QCS of all places should be a forum for mods to engage sincerely, and if they aren't going to do that they shouldn't engage there at all. I found it very frustrating that a D&D mod went into a QCS thread to poo poo up the place by misleading people about what politics moderation is currently like on this site.

i can tell you that mods don't do dumb poo poo out of some sinister hidden motive to give an admin cover to close a thread or not deal with an issue or something, admins are perfectly good at closing threads and not dealing with issues all on their own. mods do dumb poo poo because mods are dumbasses just like everyone else on this site and sometimes a mod gets the uncontrollable urge to troll people or make stupid jokes.

Personally I don't like it when mods do trolling where the whole basis of the troll is lying about what modding is like, because it's exploiting an imbalanced power dynamic where the target has no way to verify what the mod is saying and so either has to take it on faith that it's true or not true based on their current opinion of SA moderation. I think that's an unhealthy dynamic to encourage. I guess this is kind of like my general dislike of comedy sixers in serious forums because the whole joke underlying a comedy sixer is that a mod has some tiny amount of power and can use it arbitrarily. I'm all for mods being as close to regular posters as possible, and part of what that means to me is not abusing the tiny amount of power an internet janitor has, which means not lying about things other posters can't see no matter how funny you might think it would be in the moment.

NeatHeteroDude posted:

Ardennes, I think you also have good input, and I'm sorry if it looks like I'm trolling people by being nice to them. but I'm still not going to stop being myself/being nice because it comes off trolly to genuinely talk to and engage with people the way I do. this is 100% how I interact with parents, clients, etc., irl, and it's the way I feel comfortable talking to people about feedback. My job is incredibly focused on supervision and accepting critical feedback from people with more knowledge and experience than you, and I am being sincere when I say that I like talking this way on and off the forums in those situations.

I can always work on how I talk to people on SA, but I like being authentic and genuine when I interact with others. If you think I'm being a dick by being nice, I don't really know how to convince you that I'm not

quote:

I've interacted with the D&D mods and GBS mods as need be, but honestly I find that CSPAM is busy enough that I don't really have time to deal with other forums. I agree with vyelkin 100% on how to approach being a moderator and want to continue to do that and that means posting in the threads I'm moderating and taking part in the community. I think I've interacted with a few QCS threads recently and sided with the posters when they are demanding better communication and transparency from mods and admins.

Ardennes posted:

Eh, friendly fire, I was honest when I said I didn’t think CSpam mods are a issue.

NeatHeteroDude posted:

It's okay, and I appreciate the response. I wish I knew more about mod history and things like that so I could get a better idea of what events people are talking about, but without knowing a ton, I'm just trying to do the best I can without loving up in a big way. the slur probation was genuinely something I didn't have to do/should have thought more about, so the qcs thread was on point about needing more clarity and information on that

really queer Christmas posted:

Mod feedback, I should be allowed to call French people frogs, Italian people meatballs, and British people garbage.

KirbyKhan posted:

Ardennes posted:

It is less “calling to account” and more about the troubling dynamic between the two sub forums and in that sense I do think there is involvement without blame. Honestly, I don’t know what Koos could do on his own either, not so much about this specific example, but more the trend.

I guess it would be a QCS issue but yeah…