board77

The Last Homely Site on the Web

Admin Powers and Bannings

Post Reply   Page 5 of 5  [ 92 posts ]
Jump to page « 1 2 3 4 5
Author Message
Estel
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 12 Mar , 2005 3:36 am
Pure Kitsch Flavor
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5159
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:47 pm
Location: London
 
Leoba - yeah, I think that's a good idea. Right now, with all the governance issues going on, as well as the invite overload, I think 1 month is an ok time.

However, in the future we won't be having as big of issues as we are having right now, so I would say a temporary admin position for a max of two weeks?

Sound right to you? Considering internet time seems to move a bit faster, I think two weeks is enough to cover any major emergencies.

Would this temporary position also be in effect when admins aren't able to get on the boards for an extended period of time?
- example, let's just say that Steve and I had just gotten married and were going on a two week honeymoon - granted, I probably would come online during that time, but the last thing I would want to do is admin stuff ;) So, would a temporary admin position be enacted for a situation like that - someone is on vacation or has final exams in school, etc etc - or would the remaining admins just have to cope with one less person.

Basically, a long winded way of saying, in what circumstances would a temp position be allowed? Or would that be up to the current admins?


Top
Profile Quote
truehobbit
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 12 Mar , 2005 2:14 pm
WYSIWYG
Offline
 
Posts: 3228
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:37 pm
Location: wherever
 
With the splitting of this thread, my posts here were all moved over to the new thread, that is, all the contributions I'd made to the discussion about admin powers and bannings, etc. They may not have been important contributions, and I think some of these things have already been resolved, so they're not relevant to the ongoing discussion, but I'd like them here, just for the record.
Sorry about this interruption of the current discussion.
truehobbit, on March 5th wrote:
Quote:

Admins have power to ban immediately
• Spamming the board with ads
• Spamming the board with porn
• Hacking the board
• Threats of RL violence against members

Poster has the Right to a Hearing
• Refusing to participate in a required Arbitration
• Refusing to abide by the Decision of Jury in an Arbitration
• Interfering with any thread in an Arbitration or a Hearing on a Ban where poster has not been asked to participate.
• Accusations of stalking or harrassment in RL that has resulted from acquaintance made on this board
• Solicitation of a minor on the board for any activity in RL that would be illegal, or using the board to arrange RL meetings with minors for the purpose of engaging in illegal activity
I think these are perfect.
Quote:

Admins have power to temporarily suspend posting rights or restrict access to a forum
• In the Invite Forum, if confidential information has been revealed, access can be suspended
• In the Jury Room, if poster has interfered with an Arbitration or Hearing on a Ban, board-wide posting rights can be suspended.
As to the first, I think it should depend onthe nature of the breach of confidence. I still don't see where the damage is in telling a friend you've put up an invite for them, for example.

As to the second, I don't rightly understand it. I thought the idea was that only the people concerned in the conflict could post in their threads in the first place, ie that posting rights would be given only to those who need them, when they need them. So, how can someone interfere in a hearing?

And the stress here is on "suspended" ,right? That is, temporary. Would that mean in such a case there'd be a hearing on this case then? Or talks about what happened and why?
Quote:
Alandriel wrote:
If after 2 probation periods the poster yet makes another bannable offence – he/she should be banned without means of recourse. Perhaps, if the offender truly repents, (contact to other members via email or IM) then after e.g. 6 months (long enough to really consider) under certain circumstances and with member discussion he/she might be allowed back (again, initially on 3 month probation)
I think there should definitely always be the opportunity to revoke the ban (like suggested, I'm just stressing it because the possibility sounds a bit doubtful here).
Quote:
Quote:
Admins should be able to create temporary admin positions (as I did with Alandriel) if the need is there;
I think if we allow that, we need a very exact definition of the cases in which that is allowed without prior asking on the boards.
In the recent case, I seem to remember that giving Alandriel temporary admin status was asked first in some thread. There was no official vote or long waiting time, but if someone had wanted to object they could have.
I can't imagine a great many cases in which it would really be necessary to do that, so let's not grant such power to the admin without thinking carefully about when and what for it should be used.
Quote:
Quote:
Admins should be able to temporarily remove posting ability of RP ID'S if there are multiple complaints against how that ID has been used.
I'm with Alandriel that multiple IDs should remain restricted to the RP threads. So, what great harm could they do that would need special treatment?
Quote:
Quote:
5. Admins should be able to temporarily remove posting ability of any ID in the "Thinking of England" forum if there are multiple complaints about how that poster has been posting there.
Basically not against that, as that forum is particularly sensitive, but shouldn't there be an arbitration process immediately when a poster stirs up trouble there? I'm a bit confused about the procedure here.

On the whole: if a poster has done something that gets them into an arbitration or a hearing, should they continue to keep their posting rights?
If not, additional admin power is not needed.
If yes, it would be ok, I think, to give the admin power to cancel posting rights (beyond the arbitration thread) temporarily, if a poster continues to misbehave during arbitration.
The points about creating forums have been edited out of the above.

The second of my posts, for which I haven't taken the trouble of reformatting, is here in its entirety:
truehobbit on March 5th wrote:
Just a few points (the easy bits ) about the first post, and then it's bed-time for me.

Jnyusa wrote:

Telling a friend you’ve put up a thread for them is not a breach of confidentiality. Telling them how everyone in the thread voted is. I can clarify that point.

Ok, I understand that. And (guess it's a bit pedantic, but it might be good to spell it out in order to hear whether there's objection): I also wouldn't see telling someone their vote went great, or it was close or something as a betrayal - especially if the person asks, which might happen. Only saying: 'soandso said this and that' is, I think. That's why I said (might have been over in Invites) that I think it depends on exactly what is being said.

Quote:
Posters, jurors and witnesses are all enabled to post in the Jury Room. Probably no one would run amok once they got there, but they could. Restricted access keeps out deliberate trolls, but TH, you know some of the crazy things that people do when they’re upset. There has to be some way of enforcing our protocols and we don’t want enforcement to be arbitrary so we define exactly what happens in each cse.

Ah, ok, I see - thanks. I didn't think of the people actually involved in the process going berserk, I thought it referred to interruptions from outside, somehow.

Quote:
Suspended means temporary. If you want to offer a definition of how long that should be, or when a hearing should or should not take place, please do so. That’s what the thread is here for.

I think in case someone interrupts a hearing, their own hearing should follow right afterwards.
But as to everything else, I'm afraid I've had no ideas so far.

Quote:
Yes, in the Jury Room, third post of the sticky thread concerning Hearings on a Ban, it says that the decision must include (a) whether to ban (b) how long to ban (c) factors contributing to the decision.

Soooorry - haven't got round to reading that, yet.

Quote:

Quote:
I think if we allow that, we need a very exact definition of the cases in which that is allowed without prior asking on the boards.

What cases would you suggest as appropriate?

Cases where there's some immediate danger to the boards, unless there is one or more additional admin.
For example if the board is flooded with spam or porn and there aren't enough people around to deal with it.
Or if there's only one admin around for some reason, who knows they won't have much time that day, but sees a lot of new people have registered (that is, without knowing what our future registration process will be, this can't be defined) or some quarrel has reached a climax.
It's hard to think of something, but in general I'm thinking of something urgent that might disrupt the boards.

A case where I'd say the boards should be asked is if the admin-shortage is foreseeable. If, for example, one admin reports PC trouble, another announces they'll soon be on holiday for a week, the remaining one or two (LOL, not sure just now how many there are going to be) could post a thread saying they propose to give admin power to whoever they choose as of the date in question.

Not a vote, you see, just a timely announcement (with the option to comment).

I think what bothers me is when I get here and things have changed I didn't expect to change. I try to keep pretty much up to date with the discussions, and still I get surprised all the time. Maybe people who don't join in here are just happily surprised with each new feature.
But there was a time when we even discussed and voted on what smilies we wanted, and I quite liked that.

Quote:
Quote:
I'm with Alandriel that multiple IDs should remain restricted to the RP threads. So, what great harm could they do that would need special treatment?


Were you in the MOME thread that blew up on TORC, TH? I don’t envision this happening often, but sometime RP characters post in such a way that makes it impossible for everyone else to play. I assume that’s what Estel has in mind.

No, never checked out MOME - what happened?

But, yes, I know from RP that a player can ruin a game. I just don't understand why this can't be handled like any other disruption of the board.
I think I might just be getting something wrong here, but I'm not sure what. (It's probably too late at night )
Special admin powers to deal with that make it seem that it's potentially more disruptive than, say, someone attacking posters in a normal discussion thread. I think it's the other way round. A normal poster attacking others could be a danger for the boards, because they could take it to all forums, while an RP character gone nuts could only disrupt RP. The poster behind the character would then face some conflict-resolution process.
Or is the idea to remove an ID without further repercussions and without removing any other IDs the same poster might use? Though that doesn't seem to make an awful lot of sense either.

Last edited by truehobbit on Sat 12 Mar , 2005 11:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

_________________

From our key principles:

We listen to one another, make good-faith efforts to understand one another, and we treat one another respectfully at all times.


Top
Profile Quote
Estel
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 12 Mar , 2005 2:29 pm
Pure Kitsch Flavor
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5159
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:47 pm
Location: London
 
Truehobbit - your posts weren't edited out THE THREAD WAS SPLIT!

I can't split certain posts, and leave other posts behind, so please, don't go accusing me of having some sort of power trip and getting rid of your stuff, when there was no other way of doing it. It's the first time I've ever split a thread. If you have a problem with me not doing it right and making a mistake since you have said you know so much more about doing it, then maybe you tell me.

I said, when I gave notice that I was going to split the thread, that I didn't know how. So don't start taking this personally, cause I can do that just as well as you can. Dammit - now I'm furious and crying - not even Jonathan and Ted accused me of being the kind of person who would do the things you're accusing me of.

I had to do exactly what you've done with my own post, in quoting it and reposting it.

I gave notice that I was going to split the thread like 24 hours before I did, so it should've come as no surprise.


You know what, I like you truehobbit, but there is almost nothing that angers me more than someone who attacks me and accuses me of having a personal slight against them, and then accuses me of using power to further that slight. I have never, in my life, been so insulted.

Ever.



I have higher morals than you could probably ever bring yourself to believe of me.



Now - do you want to take this OUTSIDE a make it a personal issue about YOU rather than the topics it was actually about or can you accept that it was a mistake from a new admin who had never split a thread before.

Edited for an overabundance of the F-word

Last edited by Estel on Sat 12 Mar , 2005 11:18 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
Profile Quote
truehobbit
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 12 Mar , 2005 3:05 pm
WYSIWYG
Offline
 
Posts: 3228
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:37 pm
Location: wherever
 
:)

Last edited by truehobbit on Sat 12 Mar , 2005 11:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

_________________

From our key principles:

We listen to one another, make good-faith efforts to understand one another, and we treat one another respectfully at all times.


Top
Profile Quote
Estel
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 12 Mar , 2005 4:05 pm
Pure Kitsch Flavor
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5159
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:47 pm
Location: London
 
You wanna know why I don't know about splitting threads? Cause I don't play around on this board since I don't want to accidently mess things up. I do my job. I make my posts. I do the best I can. And I don't like accusations of doing less.



It takes a hell of a lot to make me get that hurt and angry myself.


I lost it because you implied that I was abusing my powers and that I was doing so because we didn't agree.



I can't imagine that anyone would take an insulting implication like that and respond well to it. Obviously, by my own replies to Jonathan and Ted and the posts I have made on TORC regarding *that* whole debacle have shown that I can usually remain calm even in the toughest of situations.

But no, I don't respond well to insults to my honor. I will defend that to the end of days because it is who I am. I work my ass off for this board, and try to do the best I can.



I'm not going to continue this off-topicness though. If you feel the need to continue it, as I said before, let's take outside or to PM. We've derailed this thread enough as it is.


Top
Profile Quote
*Alandriel*
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 14 Mar , 2005 12:14 pm
*Ex-Admin of record*
Offline
 
Posts: 2372
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 10:15 am
 
Can I get back to the topic of Temporary Admins ? :D
(and I hope you can work out your differences :hug:)

Rather than two weeks, I'd recommend one week at a time, reviewable at the end of that week and extendable for another week (and so forth).

Two weeks in my opinion is too long as an initial commitment for a temporary Admin. If a temp Admin really commits and focuses for that one week, chances are by the end of that week the situation will not require any further temporary assistance. And if it does, you'd have the option to prolong for another week (which of course will have to be decided amongst the Admin depending on their assessment of the workload)

_______________
Resident witch [ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
TORN
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 30 Mar , 2005 7:50 pm
THE GREAT AND POWERFUL
Offline
 
Posts: 412
Joined: Sun 06 Mar , 2005 2:30 am
 
[THIS MESSAGE IS POSTED HERE AS I AM NOT A DELEGATE TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION AND THEREFORE DO NOT HAVE STANDING TO PARTICIPATE DURING THE DELIBERATIONS. THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED TO ADDRESS THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THERE SHOULD BE A SELECTION PROCESS FOR BECOMING AN ADMIN, OR WHETHER THERE SHOULD SIMPLY BE A ROTATION THAT ALLOWS ANYONE TO BE AN ADMIN]

ANY PROCESS (OR LACK THEREOF) THAT IS LIKELY TO LEAD TO THE INSTALLATION OF ME, THE GREAT AND POWERFUL TORN, AS AN ADMIN IS A PROCESS (OR LACK THEREOF) THAT SHOULD PROVIDE GREAT COMFORT TO THE B77 COMMUNITY!!!

:devil: :devil: :devil:

SIGNED,

THE RESIDENT MISERABLE POLTROO


[I BELIEVE THAT I HAVE SUCCESSFULLY MADE MY POINT.]


Top
Profile Quote
Primula_Baggins
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 30 Mar , 2005 8:06 pm
Living in hope
Offline
 
Posts: 7291
Joined: Sat 29 Jan , 2005 5:54 pm
Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
 
:bow: :bow: :bow: :x

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
TORN
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 30 Mar , 2005 8:26 pm
THE GREAT AND POWERFUL
Offline
 
Posts: 412
Joined: Sun 06 Mar , 2005 2:30 am
 
Hmmm . . . just took a peek over at the convention and was shocked to find that an immediate decision was not taken to insist on voting -- I guess no one has seen this post yet!!!

But seriously, if anyone gives a rat's arse, I am a strong supporter of some minimal screening of admins (such as voting, or some other process that would ensure that the likes of me, THE GREAT AND POWERFUL TORN, never become an admin), even if it carries the potential of creating hard feelings if a poster is a perennial also-ran. Even among a crowd of all good people, there are some who are better trusted with admin powers than others.


Top
Profile Quote
Primula_Baggins
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 30 Mar , 2005 8:40 pm
Living in hope
Offline
 
Posts: 7291
Joined: Sat 29 Jan , 2005 5:54 pm
Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
 
I'd vote for the great and powerful TORN. :)

But seriously, the system of voting I've been advocating over in the convention is not "pick the admin" but "Yes or no--should this person be an admin when the time comes?" I am certain the overwhelming majority of people would be approved. They would not actually serve until called out of the pool, probably in the order they went in, so no vote would determine the next admin, especially once we have a backlog.

I see two benefits to having such a vote rather than none at all: to keep the admin process in front of board members, and to provide a mechanism for disapproving someone who should not be an admin--say, a semiliterate spammer, or someone with serious enmities on the board that might tempt them to use their powers less than fairly. Once we reach a certain size, it's likely that current admins will not know everyone in the admin candidate pool.

I'd like to know what people think of this idea--and if they prefer no votes at all, what ideas they have for
  • keeping the volunteer admin idea in front of the board at large
  • keeping the process open and transparent
  • protecting against putting people in the admin role who should not be there.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Holbytla
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 02 Apr , 2005 6:36 pm
Grumpy cuz I can be
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 6642
Joined: Thu 09 Dec , 2004 3:07 am
 
Careful all. She now has teh powa.
Let us hope she isn't drunk with powa. :devil:

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Primula_Baggins
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 02 Apr , 2005 7:03 pm
Living in hope
Offline
 
Posts: 7291
Joined: Sat 29 Jan , 2005 5:54 pm
Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
 
:D

Though reading that post reminds me that my views have evolved a bit, as expressed in the Jury Room thread, partly in response to other people's ideas of how to accomplish the same goals without a vote.

And I don't need this here cape and mask to kick you around, Holby dear.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Display: Sort by: Direction:
Post Reply   Page 5 of 5  [ 92 posts ]
Return to “Threads of Historical Interest” | Jump to page « 1 2 3 4 5
Jump to: