Deleting half of what I wrote because I have a question I want an honest answer to.
N_S, what is the response you want? In trying to actually answer your questions and give you the information you seek, I've somehow become the target of your ire.
As I said, there's a discussion going on about the ruling in question. But regardless of the outcome, we can't A.) go back in time to stop the original ruling, or b.) Go back in time and stop your suspension from happening. It's already happened.
If you'd like an apology, I'll personally make one for you when the discussion is over if it turns out we made a mistake. If you'd like, I'll hand-write it and send it to a P.O. box of your choosing.
I understand you feel slighted. I would like you to understand that I came into this thread prematurely specifically to address your concerns and let you know that this wasn't a unanimous decision, and that suspended users themselves are not the only recourse to fixing a bad decision.
I'm actually in the middle of reading through this thread (200 posts in eight hours?) to respond to a few things. However, i felt this one needed responding.
N_S, the staff actually has been discussing your suspension. Quite a lot, in fact. The issue is that the discussion has been rather back and forth. Some people feel that the suspension was warranted, some did not.
Unfortunately, the discussion itself has lead to some discussion on the rule, the purpose of it, and the wording thereof. That discussion took time, to the point where you were off suspension before we actually finished that discussion.
Spirit of the law gets you as far as to when someone rulemongers you or when someone claims that the rules are subjective (what is happening right now).
When that happens, spirit of the law turns into letter of the law to avoid people thinking the laws aren't fair.
Ruling subjectively in your favor = Common Sense
Ruling subjectively not in your favor = Abuse of Power
See a problem?
Yes I see a problem however you have to be consistent all the way across. No exception. There was an exception so this happened.
My immediate response it that there is a lot of the unsupported accusations, misinformation & uninformed opining that seems to follow any discussion about my conduct or suitability for the administrator role. . . which leaves me feeling pretty exhausted.
I think a large part of the reason for this is mod lounge confidentiality, which means that most people participating in this discussion (especially those who feel aggrieved) don't have full access to the facts.
So I'd like to make a request to all mods/admins: Would you be willing to agree to waive mod lounge confidentiality for all posts relevant to this discussion? Redactions can be made if necessary.
The intent of that rule is to stop a suspended or banned member from being able to communicate to the forums by way of someone else. "Assist" is a better word than "on behalf", and I have actually asked for this change to occur. Putting their messages in a place they can't access is helping them circumvent their ban.
No one's asking you to cease friendships. What we are asking you to do is respect decisions that are made by the staff. If someone is suspended from posting, they do not have the privilege of having their voice heard on this board. Putting their voice on this board by way of quote is assisting them in circumventing their ban.
And how do you expect us normal users to know what your intent is? When moderating, you should ask yourself if a reasonable person could interpret the relevant rule in a way that the post in question doesn't violate it. If the answer is "yes," you should never do anything more than issue a warning.
(Also...your interpretation is quite problematic. For example, what if the suspended user does something newsworthy? Can we really not post someone's PT-winning deck because he happens to be suspended?)
Yes I see a problem however you have to be consistent all the way across. No exception. There was an exception so this happened.
See the problem?
Unless you are arguing that any application of a rule is subjective, there was no exception. A global moderator interpreted the rule to result in a suspension. The suspension was given based on the rule. Where have you seen other examples of a member "posting on behalf of" that were not suspended.
People then raised exception to the suspension and discussion began on two fronts, whether or not this was a bad ruling and whether or not the rule was worded with the correct intent. Both of those discussions are still happening.
The effects of a decision that the suspension was wrong wouldn't further affect N_S it would affect other users who might be suspended
In an ideal world all the perceived loopholes would be closed and how rules should be interpreted would be agreed upon before they are broken, but in the real world that is not the case.
Even in government we have judges and arbitrators that get to decide if someone else's application of the rules is correct. This forum has no such body. So we discuss which interpretation is right.
We have an entire thread completely devoted to rules interpretations.
Do you want to play mod? Here's a reported post I got about 10 min ago:
Out of the blackness and stench of the engulfing swamp emerged a shimmering figure. Only the splattered armor and ichor-stained sword hinted at the unfathomable evil the knight had just laid waste.
I think a large part of the reason for this is mod lounge confidentiality, which means that most people participating in this discussion (especially those who feel aggrieved) don't have full access to the facts.
So I'd like to make a request to all mods/admins: Would you be willing to agree to waive mod lounge confidentiality for all posts relevant to this discussion? Redactions can be made if necessary.
I'm not sure how I can provide mine, but if a way can be found, I have no problem sharing my posts in the Mod Lounge or elsewhere with the public. I've tried to be as professional as I can in just about everything I post. I'm not always successful, but ther eyou go.
And how do you expect us normal users to know what your intent is? When moderating, you should ask yourself if a reasonable person could interpret the relevant rule in a way that the post in question doesn't violate it. If the answer is "yes," you should never do anything more than issue a warning.
You'd be surprised at how few warnings or infractions I actually issue, then.
Your statement is a trick, I'm afraid. There is any number of ways any number of rules can be violated and still argued to be within the rules. This is where we need to have leeway. This is why we can't operate by 'letter of the law' across the board.
There are some places where letter of the law applies. Market Street, I believe, is one of them. There are others where it does not. My home forums, Colosseum and Personal Writing, fall under that.
If your 'reasonable person' feels that our action is in error, that's why I pushed for an appeals process. That's the entire point. The staff cannot be right 100% of the time. I say this as the living body, not the people. We WILL make a mistakes. It happens. We're human. If we make a mistake, we need the people to speak out.
That said, we also need to be allowed to defend ourselves.
(Also...your interpretation is quite problematic. For example, what if the suspended user does something newsworthy? Can we really not post someone's PT-winning deck because he happens to be suspended?)
This is one of the questions that came up during the discussion of the rule, in fact.
The rule tries to cover intentional discussion directly with the site. If suspended user wins the PT? Awesome. Talk about his deck. But quoting him when he says "Man, my deck is awesome, you all should use it" would be against the rule. One is talking about an event, the other is directly conveying a message.
I mean, I understand that, but it sounds like letter was used against him. If so, and spirit has been used, then you and I are in agreement.
The letter of the law here says that it's against the rules to 'assist another user in communicating with the site on their request while they are banned'.
The word in question here is 'behalf'. Behalf requires that the action be by the direct request of another, or that it directly benefit them in some way.
The spirit of the rule is 'assist another user in communicating with the site while they are banned'. Not at request. If you are conveying a message from them to the site, it's against the rules.
I am simplycontesting the actions of the staff that led to my suspension.
You may have enforced the morally wrong decision, you may have fought it. This is behind closed doors. You are speaking to me in the condition of a staff representative. I have been claiming that the staff has been taking actions detrimental to the community at large. I am not being vocal against you as an individual. I have no Ill will against you, and we may just have a civil chat somewhere else very easily (specially since I made it well known that I respected a lot of your decisions when I was on staff).
I'm just making sure. Some of the 'yous' being thrown around seem to be rather direct.
Well, the Church recently overturned the ruling against some crazy dead man that was claiming the Earth revolved around the Sun, more than 400years ago.
I trust this'll take less time than that. It took me less than two weeks, I think, to get the suspension appeals forum to be put into place.
An apology from the staff (not from you) would be nice and a first step in restoring some token of confidence in the genuineness of their actions.
But the fact that (according to yourself) people are still busy arguing whether it was right to punish a vocal opposer of the staff, for a rule someone else spelled wrong, does not lead to restoring confidence in your actions. I do hope you guys come to your senses, and when you are ready to send me that signed apology letter, please PM me and I'll forward you my work adress. I think that in order to speed the signing process, just the Admins and Globals signatures will suffice.
I have to admit, my timeliness with putting stuff in the post office has been known to be off. I never got the hang of stamps and envelopes. I"m truly an internet kid.
The discussion is ongoing, and as it does, so does the discussion on how to fix the rule so this doesn't happen again.
As I said, the question is on the spirit of the rule, not the letter.
Unless you are arguing that any application of a rule is subjective, there was no exception. A global moderator interpreted the rule to result in a suspension. The suspension was given based on the rule. Where have you seen other examples of a member "posting on behalf of" that were not suspended.
People then raised exception to the suspension and discussion began on two fronts, whether or not this was a bad ruling and whether or not the rule was worded with the correct intent. Both of those discussions are still happening.
The effects of a decision that the suspension was wrong wouldn't further affect N_S it would affect other users who might be suspended
In an ideal world all the perceived loopholes would be closed and how rules should be interpreted would be agreed upon before they are broken, but in the real world that is not the case.
Even in government we have judges and arbitrators that get to decide if someone else's application of the rules is correct. This forum has no such body. So we discuss which interpretation is right.
We have an entire thread completely devoted to rules interpretations.
Do you want to play mod? Here's a reported post I got about 10 min ago:
So anyone should reasonably expect to be suspended or banned in the future for some random reason right? All it takes is to have some staff member step in and claim: "Wait! that's not what we meant when we worded the rule!"
actually i know for a fact that there is wording in the rules of this forum that while you may not break any rules at all. if the mod feel's (no evidence) feels that you are breaking the rules they may infact or suspend you whether you did anything against the rules or not.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around. Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
We need to focus on the OP, which is about Rianalnn's colossal failure of leadership. Attacking the entire staff only alienates them and (potentially) puts them squarely in the Rianalnn group.
I am sure that Ria is counting on this, sending out lots of cloying PMs saying "Look, they're attacking you too! We're basically allies in all this!"
If any of my posts are relevant from the time I was on Staff, I do not waive that privilege.
Got something to hide? Only reason one would want to disallow their posts to be seen is if they are ashamed by their content.
@TCF - spam through and through. The post has nothing to do with the topic at hand. trolling, little harder to judge, would have to see if there is a histoy of animosity between the OP and the responder to really know the intent.
"I'm sorry officer, I believe there is a mistake in the roadcode rulebook, right there. Therefore, I think I am going to have to decline that ticket you want to give me"
In my honest opinion, ( N_S ), the 'behalf' argument feels a lot like this. I don't know if you posted this for that reason.
We need to focus on the OP, which is about Rianalnn's colossal failure of leadership. Attacking the entire staff only alienates them and (potentially) puts them squarely in the Rianalnn group.
I am sure that Ria is counting on this, sending out lots of cloying PMs saying "Look, they're attacking you too! We're basically allies in all this!"
Just the staff at large, and whoever is responsible for turning it into a shadow of its former self. I might be wrong, but I doubt this includes you as far as my personal opinion is concerned.
I'd like to make a request that I believe you two will appreciate. So please hear me out:
The Gutter asks that the Staff treats each Gutter member individually, and takes each individual case by itself. I, personally, agree.
I ask that you do the same. Treat each staff member as an individual. Understand that we make decisions as a group, after discussion (committees, the worst form of government, I know), but we each have our own opinions.
Edit: And to respond to the latter half of your quote, N_S, I endeavor to make sure that this site is the better for every day I work for it, even if in an incremental way. At the end of the day, though, it's up to those who use it to decide if I am successful.
I'm a current modrator here. There is a definite difference in the way Ria treats people when they agree with him than when they don't. If you don't agree with him, or he thinks you are on the other side of an opinion you get the cold shoulder at best. At worst, he'll downright be mean and dismissive.
As a person he's swell, but he's not fit for leadership roles. At least he shouldn't be shaping policies and making sweeping decisions with little to no input. The MTGS community has to seen and not every accusation can be a falsehood. Once a certain threshold has been reached, that idea can't be swept away.
The saddest part of this whole mess is that Ria has henchmen, that for some reason just go along with this. If the Rules section moderators were the admins, we'd be talking about another person just as bad, but with less power. That sadness can only be comprable to the sadness that I feel beacuse of the fear that I actually need to post anonymously so as to not fall victim to Ria's backdoor mafia politics. If I have any hope of changing this site for the better by my hand, than this is what it has come to. I have to keep my name out of the cross-hairs.
I'm a current modrator here. There is a definite difference in the way Ria treats people when they agree with him than when they don't. If you don't agree with him, or he thinks you are on the other side of an opinion you get the cold shoulder at best. At worst, he'll downright be mean and dismissive.
As a person he's swell, but he's not fit for leadership roles. At least he shouldn't be shaping policies and making sweeping decisions with little to no input. The MTGS community has to seen and not every accusation can be a falsehood. Once a certain threshold has been reached, that idea can't be swept away.
The saddest part of this whole mess is that Ria has henchmen, that for some reason just go along with this. If the Rules section moderators were the admins, we'd be talking about another person just as bad, but with less power. That sadness can only be comprable to the sadness that I feel beacuse of the fear that I actually need to post anonymously so as to not fall victim to Ria's backdoor mafia politics. If I have any hope of changing this site for the better by my hand, than this is what it has come to. I have to keep my name out of the cross-hairs.
You have been forced to make a gimmick just to speak out?
The very idea you are afraid to step forward because you fear your superior just points to a shameful state of affairs.
Rianalnn has fostered this culture. Let him reap the rotten fruits!
Not at all. If I had a nickel for every borderline post I made which received an infraction I would have like 9 pages of nickels.
Trust me, I have had the "borderline" conversation with mods many times.
Which only helps point to the fact that certain mods, Rian included, are too overzealous in their moderation of the site. Their definition of erring on the side of caution is to warn, infract and suspend people then only discuss it when the person in question objects. When in reality erring to the side of caution should be to discuss fully with their fellow staff on questionable calls and only after discussion is complete issue a punishment if it is found needed.
Which only helps point to the fact that certain mods, Rian included, are too overzealous in their moderation of the site. Their definition of erring on the side of caution is to warn, infract and suspend people then only discuss it when the person in question objects. When in reality erring to the side of caution should be to discuss fully with their fellow staff on questionable calls and only after discussion is complete issue a punishment if it is found needed.
That happens very often, Tordeck. It was said already, but we have a thread for questionable calls in the ML. It sees a lot of traffic. Every day mods check in on posts they aren't sure about. I use it myself when there's doubt in my mind about an action.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Can we have Megiddo removed from the forum forever please?
i'm pretty sure i can find your ***** online within 3 minutes
"scum in real life" over a a player lurking in mafia game Rian wasnt even in
then using his power to have the person suspended when they called him on it, instead of being mature and apologizing for flaming. Especially when said player publicly explained that his reason for lurking was to due to medical issues with his child.
Meg, Nai - I know for fact that yes some staff do the right thing and get assistance before making a call. That post was not aimed at them. And you can see that I did say some staff were guilty of shooting first, asking questions later.
@ what then question - Then we move on and get people who are deserving to be in positions of leadership and power into those spots. ( I say spots, because there really should be more than 3 admins on a site this large, and I forsee at least 1 or 2 other staff that might feel the need to follow Rian's steps and remove themselves from their seats as they fit the same bill as he)
Then we eat tacos, celebrate, and wait for the smoke on who the next pope is? Your contributions to this thread have become a string of spam posts. Infraction issued.
-Galspanic
N_S, what is the response you want? In trying to actually answer your questions and give you the information you seek, I've somehow become the target of your ire.
As I said, there's a discussion going on about the ruling in question. But regardless of the outcome, we can't A.) go back in time to stop the original ruling, or b.) Go back in time and stop your suspension from happening. It's already happened.
If you'd like an apology, I'll personally make one for you when the discussion is over if it turns out we made a mistake. If you'd like, I'll hand-write it and send it to a P.O. box of your choosing.
I understand you feel slighted. I would like you to understand that I came into this thread prematurely specifically to address your concerns and let you know that this wasn't a unanimous decision, and that suspended users themselves are not the only recourse to fixing a bad decision.
My helpdesk should you need me.
Yes I see a problem however you have to be consistent all the way across. No exception. There was an exception so this happened.
See the problem?
My helpdesk should you need me.
Btw, this is the best internet drama ever. EVER..
My helpdesk should you need me.
I think a large part of the reason for this is mod lounge confidentiality, which means that most people participating in this discussion (especially those who feel aggrieved) don't have full access to the facts.
So I'd like to make a request to all mods/admins: Would you be willing to agree to waive mod lounge confidentiality for all posts relevant to this discussion? Redactions can be made if necessary.
And how do you expect us normal users to know what your intent is? When moderating, you should ask yourself if a reasonable person could interpret the relevant rule in a way that the post in question doesn't violate it. If the answer is "yes," you should never do anything more than issue a warning.
(Also...your interpretation is quite problematic. For example, what if the suspended user does something newsworthy? Can we really not post someone's PT-winning deck because he happens to be suspended?)
Practice for Khans of Tarkir Limited:
Draft: (#1) (#2) (#3) (#4) (#5)
The Family
Unless you are arguing that any application of a rule is subjective, there was no exception. A global moderator interpreted the rule to result in a suspension. The suspension was given based on the rule. Where have you seen other examples of a member "posting on behalf of" that were not suspended.
People then raised exception to the suspension and discussion began on two fronts, whether or not this was a bad ruling and whether or not the rule was worded with the correct intent. Both of those discussions are still happening.
The effects of a decision that the suspension was wrong wouldn't further affect N_S it would affect other users who might be suspended
In an ideal world all the perceived loopholes would be closed and how rules should be interpreted would be agreed upon before they are broken, but in the real world that is not the case.
Even in government we have judges and arbitrators that get to decide if someone else's application of the rules is correct. This forum has no such body. So we discuss which interpretation is right.
We have an entire thread completely devoted to rules interpretations.
Do you want to play mod? Here's a reported post I got about 10 min ago:
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=428122
Is the second post: Trolling? Spam? Nothing?
I'm not sure how I can provide mine, but if a way can be found, I have no problem sharing my posts in the Mod Lounge or elsewhere with the public. I've tried to be as professional as I can in just about everything I post. I'm not always successful, but ther eyou go.
You'd be surprised at how few warnings or infractions I actually issue, then.
Your statement is a trick, I'm afraid. There is any number of ways any number of rules can be violated and still argued to be within the rules. This is where we need to have leeway. This is why we can't operate by 'letter of the law' across the board.
There are some places where letter of the law applies. Market Street, I believe, is one of them. There are others where it does not. My home forums, Colosseum and Personal Writing, fall under that.
If your 'reasonable person' feels that our action is in error, that's why I pushed for an appeals process. That's the entire point. The staff cannot be right 100% of the time. I say this as the living body, not the people. We WILL make a mistakes. It happens. We're human. If we make a mistake, we need the people to speak out.
That said, we also need to be allowed to defend ourselves.
This is one of the questions that came up during the discussion of the rule, in fact.
The rule tries to cover intentional discussion directly with the site. If suspended user wins the PT? Awesome. Talk about his deck. But quoting him when he says "Man, my deck is awesome, you all should use it" would be against the rule. One is talking about an event, the other is directly conveying a message.
The letter of the law here says that it's against the rules to 'assist another user in communicating with the site on their request while they are banned'.
The word in question here is 'behalf'. Behalf requires that the action be by the direct request of another, or that it directly benefit them in some way.
The spirit of the rule is 'assist another user in communicating with the site while they are banned'. Not at request. If you are conveying a message from them to the site, it's against the rules.
I'm just making sure. Some of the 'yous' being thrown around seem to be rather direct.
I trust this'll take less time than that. It took me less than two weeks, I think, to get the suspension appeals forum to be put into place.
I have to admit, my timeliness with putting stuff in the post office has been known to be off. I never got the hang of stamps and envelopes. I"m truly an internet kid.
The discussion is ongoing, and as it does, so does the discussion on how to fix the rule so this doesn't happen again.
As I said, the question is on the spirit of the rule, not the letter.
My helpdesk should you need me.
Man. I should play more magic, what's planechase?!
Serious note: If said user was known for trolling the infract, if not then not. Nothing seems negative or bad about that post..?
OHHHH. Actually, after further reading, that's totally trolling. OFF WITH THEIR HEAD!
actually i know for a fact that there is wording in the rules of this forum that while you may not break any rules at all. if the mod feel's (no evidence) feels that you are breaking the rules they may infact or suspend you whether you did anything against the rules or not.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
I am sure that Ria is counting on this, sending out lots of cloying PMs saying "Look, they're attacking you too! We're basically allies in all this!"
Do not give him such a chance.
Time's up for Tyranny!
@TCF - spam through and through. The post has nothing to do with the topic at hand. trolling, little harder to judge, would have to see if there is a histoy of animosity between the OP and the responder to really know the intent.
The Family
In my honest opinion, ( N_S ), the 'behalf' argument feels a lot like this. I don't know if you posted this for that reason.
I'd like to make a request that I believe you two will appreciate. So please hear me out:
The Gutter asks that the Staff treats each Gutter member individually, and takes each individual case by itself. I, personally, agree.
I ask that you do the same. Treat each staff member as an individual. Understand that we make decisions as a group, after discussion (committees, the worst form of government, I know), but we each have our own opinions.
Edit: And to respond to the latter half of your quote, N_S, I endeavor to make sure that this site is the better for every day I work for it, even if in an incremental way. At the end of the day, though, it's up to those who use it to decide if I am successful.
My helpdesk should you need me.
Not at all. If I had a nickel for every borderline post I made which received an infraction I would have like 9 pages of nickels.
Trust me, I have had the "borderline" conversation with mods many times.
I could buy those shocks I've wanted...
As a person he's swell, but he's not fit for leadership roles. At least he shouldn't be shaping policies and making sweeping decisions with little to no input. The MTGS community has to seen and not every accusation can be a falsehood. Once a certain threshold has been reached, that idea can't be swept away.
The saddest part of this whole mess is that Ria has henchmen, that for some reason just go along with this. If the Rules section moderators were the admins, we'd be talking about another person just as bad, but with less power. That sadness can only be comprable to the sadness that I feel beacuse of the fear that I actually need to post anonymously so as to not fall victim to Ria's backdoor mafia politics. If I have any hope of changing this site for the better by my hand, than this is what it has come to. I have to keep my name out of the cross-hairs.
You have been forced to make a gimmick just to speak out?
The very idea you are afraid to step forward because you fear your superior just points to a shameful state of affairs.
Rianalnn has fostered this culture. Let him reap the rotten fruits!
Which only helps point to the fact that certain mods, Rian included, are too overzealous in their moderation of the site. Their definition of erring on the side of caution is to warn, infract and suspend people then only discuss it when the person in question objects. When in reality erring to the side of caution should be to discuss fully with their fellow staff on questionable calls and only after discussion is complete issue a punishment if it is found needed.
The Family
( N_S ), while we wait for Ria to respond, I do have a question for you that I do wish for an answer to.
If Ria were to step down from his position and accept that he's done wrong... What then?
My helpdesk should you need me.
"scum in real life" over a a player lurking in mafia game Rian wasnt even in
then using his power to have the person suspended when they called him on it, instead of being mature and apologizing for flaming. Especially when said player publicly explained that his reason for lurking was to due to medical issues with his child.
Meg, Nai - I know for fact that yes some staff do the right thing and get assistance before making a call. That post was not aimed at them. And you can see that I did say some staff were guilty of shooting first, asking questions later.
@ what then question - Then we move on and get people who are deserving to be in positions of leadership and power into those spots. ( I say spots, because there really should be more than 3 admins on a site this large, and I forsee at least 1 or 2 other staff that might feel the need to follow Rian's steps and remove themselves from their seats as they fit the same bill as he)
The Family
Your contributions to this thread have become a string of spam posts. Infraction issued.
-Galspanic