Anonymous Moderation is cowardly.

[Biomech]

Your post was likely deleted because the comment you were responding to was also deleted (likely because it was insubstantial) and your post didn't add anything else to the conversation. I don't see why you're acting so surprised by this.

I guess whenever your post gets deleted because of the comment to which you responded to also got deleted, you personally get a message from the moderators explaining that "the post got deleted because it was a reply to other deleted post", at least this is what I got from grue when my post got deleted in these situations. So I don't think this is the case.

That's because I have a script so I can quickly compose canned messages. Don't expect me to always send those though, and certainly don't expect other staff to do the same.

Well damm. This would explain a lot (LOL). Maybe it would be a good idea to give to the other moderators so they can help educate people on how to avoid breaking the rules......or better yet, give to theymos so a anon message can be sent with the same information to allow for anon moderation but with the benefits of educating people as to which rules they are breaking.

I think this may be the most constructive post in this thread!

[1714996631]

1714996631

[1714996631]

1714996631

[1714996631]

1714996631

[1714996631]

1714996631

[gogxmagog]

No. I make posts all the time and only sometimes are they deleted. I can't imargerine the sort of Mincy prancey panty waste and mincing dimwit who would cry o boo hoo about it

[Crestington]

Your post was likely deleted because the comment you were responding to was also deleted (likely because it was insubstantial) and your post didn't add anything else to the conversation. I don't see why you're acting so surprised by this.

I guess whenever your post gets deleted because of the comment to which you responded to also got deleted, you personally get a message from the moderators explaining that "the post got deleted because it was a reply to other deleted post", at least this is what I got from grue when my post got deleted in these situations. So I don't think this is the case.

That's because I have a script so I can quickly compose canned messages. Don't expect me to always send those though, and certainly don't expect other staff to do the same.

Well damm. This would explain a lot (LOL). Maybe it would be a good idea to give to the other moderators so they can help educate people on how to avoid breaking the rules......or better yet, give to theymos so a anon message can be sent with the same information to allow for anon moderation but with the benefits of educating people as to which rules they are breaking.

I think this may be the most constructive post in this thread!

Hmm, you mean like write up some detailed messages moderators can use to alert that a person's post has been deleted and why, within a clearly defined set of rules?

You already have the unofficial list, you could just break that up and do a little write up for each and make it sound nice.

Dear user, we regret to inform you that one of your posts has been deleted (oops), we are very sorry about this but the post flagged for removal because one of friendly moderators recognized this post as Spam. Excessive posts and Spam are very expensive for us to host and we want to make the bestest possible Bitcointalk community possible. We hope this has not caused you too much inconvenience, if you are unsure about posting procedures, you can view the Moderation guidelines here (insert link here).

Hope you have a super fun happy day, Bitcointalk

[theshittening]

-snip- And these people, when a moderator takes action against them, will take it personally, and they will make it their mission to make that persons life as miserable as possible. Believe me, I've been there. The most likely long term result of that will be that mods will be less likely to act against these people, and only act on the reasonable people, making moderation even less consistent (the opposite of what you want). You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Can't argue with that logic.
That's why i have instructed the officers on our police force to always wear Klan hoods, disregard the law if it stands in the way of their duty and never, under any circumstances, reveal their badge numbers.

That way, they are able to do what's right, without worrying about the criminal element retaliating against them and their families.

[TheMystic]

-snip- And these people, when a moderator takes action against them, will take it personally, and they will make it their mission to make that persons life as miserable as possible. Believe me, I've been there. The most likely long term result of that will be that mods will be less likely to act against these people, and only act on the reasonable people, making moderation even less consistent (the opposite of what you want). You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Can't argue with that logic.
That's why i have instructed the officers on our police force to always wear Klan hoods, disregard the law if it stands in the way of their duty and never, under any circumstances, reveal their badge numbers.

That way, they are able to do what's right, without worrying about the criminal element retaliating against them and their families.

You must be talking about the Portland police. I thought that they did that on their own. I didn't realize that it was you who taught them to do that. 

[dogie]

-snip- And these people, when a moderator takes action against them, will take it personally, and they will make it their mission to make that persons life as miserable as possible. Believe me, I've been there. The most likely long term result of that will be that mods will be less likely to act against these people, and only act on the reasonable people, making moderation even less consistent (the opposite of what you want). You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Can't argue with that logic.
That's why i have instructed the officers on our police force to always wear Klan hoods, disregard the law if it stands in the way of their duty and never, under any circumstances, reveal their badge numbers.

That way, they are able to do what's right, without worrying about the criminal element retaliating against them and their families.

Police aren't (meant to) judge, juries do that. And juries are often kept anonymous to prevent threats or pressure to decide one way or another.

[theshittening]

-snip- And these people, when a moderator takes action against them, will take it personally, and they will make it their mission to make that persons life as miserable as possible. Believe me, I've been there. The most likely long term result of that will be that mods will be less likely to act against these people, and only act on the reasonable people, making moderation even less consistent (the opposite of what you want). You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Can't argue with that logic.
That's why i have instructed the officers on our police force to always wear Klan hoods, disregard the law if it stands in the way of their duty and never, under any circumstances, reveal their badge numbers.

That way, they are able to do what's right, without worrying about the criminal element retaliating against them and their families.

Police aren't (meant to) judge, juries do that. And juries are often kept anonymous to prevent threats or pressure to decide one way or another.

And that's why the juries aren't allowed to break down your door and arrest you.  That's also why juries don't bring cases to trials, and why neither the the plaintiff nor the plaintiff's counsel get to hide behind anonymity.

This is basic stuff, things that every child should know.

[Quickseller]

-snip- And these people, when a moderator takes action against them, will take it personally, and they will make it their mission to make that persons life as miserable as possible. Believe me, I've been there. The most likely long term result of that will be that mods will be less likely to act against these people, and only act on the reasonable people, making moderation even less consistent (the opposite of what you want). You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Can't argue with that logic.
That's why i have instructed the officers on our police force to always wear Klan hoods, disregard the law if it stands in the way of their duty and never, under any circumstances, reveal their badge numbers.

That way, they are able to do what's right, without worrying about the criminal element retaliating against them and their families.

Police aren't (meant to) judge, juries do that. And juries are often kept anonymous to prevent threats or pressure to decide one way or another.

And that's why the juries aren't allowed to break down your door and arrest you.  That's also why juries don't bring cases to trials, and why neither the the plaintiff nor the plaintiff's counsel get to hide behind anonymity.

This is basic stuff, things that every child should know.

I don't think any of the moderators are breaking down your doors.

If you want a decision of a moderator reversed then you will need to ask an admin of your choice (you have two choices) and their identity will be known when they make a decision.

[theshittening]

-snip- And these people, when a moderator takes action against them, will take it personally, and they will make it their mission to make that persons life as miserable as possible. Believe me, I've been there. The most likely long term result of that will be that mods will be less likely to act against these people, and only act on the reasonable people, making moderation even less consistent (the opposite of what you want). You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Can't argue with that logic.
That's why i have instructed the officers on our police force to always wear Klan hoods, disregard the law if it stands in the way of their duty and never, under any circumstances, reveal their badge numbers.

That way, they are able to do what's right, without worrying about the criminal element retaliating against them and their families.

Police aren't (meant to) judge, juries do that. And juries are often kept anonymous to prevent threats or pressure to decide one way or another.

And that's why the juries aren't allowed to break down your door and arrest you.  That's also why juries don't bring cases to trials, and why neither the the plaintiff nor the plaintiff's counsel get to hide behind anonymity.

This is basic stuff, things that every child should know.

I don't think any of the moderators are breaking down your doors.

If you want a decision of a moderator reversed then you will need to ask an admin of your choice (you have two choices) and their identity will be known when they make a decision.

No, admins are not breaking down doors. I mistakenly assumed there was no need to explain that I was relying on analogy to make my point, or how analogy works.

If the hooded cop refuses to give you his badge number while disappearing you, feel free to appeal this to him, or to his friend, the other cop.  Because these two anonymous cops are also anonymous judges and jury.  I'm sure justice will be served.

[DiamondCardz]

No, admins are not breaking down doors. I mistakenly assumed there was no need to explain that I was relying on analogy to make my point, or how analogy works.

And you're using analogy in a place where it doesn't belong, like the inevitable person who comes in and compares Bitcointalk mods banning account farmers to SWAT teams in America destroying buildings to arrest shoplifters. The link between them is basically non-existent but people still whip it up to the same "power abuse!" train of thought that every other criticism of the mods boils down to - including this thread, as obviously if OP didn't believe some sort of abuse of power had taken place he wouldn't be complaining. But in reality, for such a large forum, the suggestion isn't feasible, and that's that.

[theshittening]

No, admins are not breaking down doors. I mistakenly assumed there was no need to explain that I was relying on analogy to make my point, or how analogy works.

And you're using analogy in a place where it doesn't belong, like the inevitable person who comes in and compares Bitcointalk mods banning account farmers to SWAT teams in America destroying buildings to arrest shoplifters. The link between them is basically non-existent but people still whip it up to the same "power abuse!" train of thought that every other criticism of the mods boils down to - including this thread, as obviously if OP didn't believe some sort of abuse of power had taken place he wouldn't be complaining. But in reality, for such a large forum, the suggestion isn't feasible, and that's that.

If the analogy doesn't work for you it means only that -- it doesn't work for you. Would be odd if you did, you being invested in the status quo. I didn't set out to convince you tho, so not too disheartened.

But let's consider your "for such a large forum, the suggestion isn't feasible" statement.
What, exactly, isn't feasible for such a large forum? The mods revealing their pseudonyms? Or a set of clearly defined, binding rules? To my knowledge, both are not only feasible, but clearly necessary and trivial to implement.

[Quickseller]

-snip- And these people, when a moderator takes action against them, will take it personally, and they will make it their mission to make that persons life as miserable as possible. Believe me, I've been there. The most likely long term result of that will be that mods will be less likely to act against these people, and only act on the reasonable people, making moderation even less consistent (the opposite of what you want). You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Can't argue with that logic.
That's why i have instructed the officers on our police force to always wear Klan hoods, disregard the law if it stands in the way of their duty and never, under any circumstances, reveal their badge numbers.

That way, they are able to do what's right, without worrying about the criminal element retaliating against them and their families.

Police aren't (meant to) judge, juries do that. And juries are often kept anonymous to prevent threats or pressure to decide one way or another.

And that's why the juries aren't allowed to break down your door and arrest you.  That's also why juries don't bring cases to trials, and why neither the the plaintiff nor the plaintiff's counsel get to hide behind anonymity.

This is basic stuff, things that every child should know.

I don't think any of the moderators are breaking down your doors.

If you want a decision of a moderator reversed then you will need to ask an admin of your choice (you have two choices) and their identity will be known when they make a decision.

No, admins are not breaking down doors. I mistakenly assumed there was no need to explain that I was relying on analogy to make my point, or how analogy works.

If the hooded cop refuses to give you his badge number while disappearing you, feel free to appeal this to him, or to his friend, the other cop.  Because these two anonymous cops are also anonymous judges and jury.  I'm sure justice will be served.

moderators cannot ban (disappear?) you, only global mods and admins can. Even if you are banned then you can create a new account and appeal the decision publicly.

I don't think you are making an appropriate analogy (nor do I understand why people think it is okay to cite Wikipedia as a source on here).

[DiamondCardz]

No, admins are not breaking down doors. I mistakenly assumed there was no need to explain that I was relying on analogy to make my point, or how analogy works.

And you're using analogy in a place where it doesn't belong, like the inevitable person who comes in and compares Bitcointalk mods banning account farmers to SWAT teams in America destroying buildings to arrest shoplifters. The link between them is basically non-existent but people still whip it up to the same "power abuse!" train of thought that every other criticism of the mods boils down to - including this thread, as obviously if OP didn't believe some sort of abuse of power had taken place he wouldn't be complaining. But in reality, for such a large forum, the suggestion isn't feasible, and that's that.

If the analogy doesn't work for you it means only that -- it doesn't work for you. Would be odd if you did, you being invested in the status quo. I didn't set out to convince you tho, so not too disheartened.

I contest that I am "invested in the status quo". That would most certainly be a valid statement if I was a staff member, but I'm not and therefore I can't really agree with you there.

But let's consider your "for such a large forum, the suggestion isn't feasible" statement.
What, exactly, isn't feasible for such a large forum? The mods revealing their pseudonyms? Or a set of clearly defined, binding rules? To my knowledge, both are not only feasible, but clearly necessary and trivial to implement.

Yes, the mods revealing their pseudonyms is not feasible. Say a mod deletes just 20 posts in a day. 50% of these people get pissed off (as they do) and PM the moderator demanding an explanation. That mod now has 10 PMs to reply to, which will likely result in long PM chains. It isn't sustainable.

[muhrohmat]

well anon moderation its impossible to negociate the factors of been more nervous pointaly and soo its a radical rupture decision form the one part

[theshittening]

No, admins are not breaking down doors. I mistakenly assumed there was no need to explain that I was relying on analogy to make my point, or how analogy works.

And you're using analogy in a place where it doesn't belong, like the inevitable person who comes in and compares Bitcointalk mods banning account farmers to SWAT teams in America destroying buildings to arrest shoplifters. The link between them is basically non-existent but people still whip it up to the same "power abuse!" train of thought that every other criticism of the mods boils down to - including this thread, as obviously if OP didn't believe some sort of abuse of power had taken place he wouldn't be complaining. But in reality, for such a large forum, the suggestion isn't feasible, and that's that.

If the analogy doesn't work for you it means only that -- it doesn't work for you. Would be odd if you did, you being invested in the status quo. I didn't set out to convince you tho, so not too disheartened.

I contest that I am "invested in the status quo". That would most certainly be a valid statement if I was a staff member, but I'm not and therefore I can't really agree with you there.

You're angling for a staff position tho, didn't you start some thread about mods & your reporting, or am I thinking of someone else?
You've been consistent in backing/white-knighting/toadying in this sub. I like the cut of your jib, my boy!

But let's consider your "for such a large forum, the suggestion isn't feasible" statement.
What, exactly, isn't feasible for such a large forum? The mods revealing their pseudonyms? Or a set of clearly defined, binding rules? To my knowledge, both are not only feasible, but clearly necessary and trivial to implement.

Yes, the mods revealing their pseudonyms is not feasible. Say a mod deletes just 20 posts in a day. 50% of these people get pissed off (as they do) and PM the moderator demanding an explanation. That mod now has 10 PMs to reply to, which will likely result in long PM chains. It isn't sustainable.

And this is where my cop analogy is helpful. How is it that cops, whose real life identities are known, manage to do their jobs? I understand that they have to deal with IRL folks with guns and shit, not just basement-dwelling keyboard warriors? Or are murderers and rapists less dangerous/likely to anger than bitcointalk users?

BTW, you forgot to address "set of clearly defined, binding rules." Just a heads-up, no rush.

[Quickseller]

Actually, generally speaking cops' identities for the most part are anon. If you ask for their name they will likely only give their last name or their first initial and their last name (you would get their badge number as well). Also the addresses where cops live is not anymore public then any other person's address, and I wouldn't doubt that cops take steps to make sure their address is not public.

[DiamondCardz]

You're angling for a staff position tho, didn't you start some thread about mods & your reporting, or am I thinking of someone else?
You've been consistent in backing/white-knighting/toadying in this sub. I like the cut of your jib, my boy!

Not really, my goodReports count is probably much lower than a lot of others. Not saying I wouldn't accept, but I'm probably not at the top of the list if I have to guess. It's much higher than the median probably, but not high enough to get very high on the leaderboard - and I did start a thread asking if there were plans to promote some staff to Global Moderators as I think that's needed to stop the influx of spambots, but obviously a quick review of what I actually just said shows that that can't really angle me for a staff position (I am suggesting existing staff are promoted, not that new staff should be made).

And this is where my cop analogy is helpful. How is it that cops, whose real life identities are known, manage to do their jobs? I understand that they have to deal with IRL folks with guns and shit, not just basement-dwelling keyboard warriors? Or are murderers and rapists less dangerous/likely to anger than bitcointalk users?

BTW, you forgot to address "set of clearly defined, binding rules." Just a heads-up, no rush.

A cop has a job. A forum moderator is a volunteer. In addition, complaints against cops are relatively uncommon compared to what would happen if moderators had to give out their name each time they deleted a post. It's not about danger, more about an efficient use of time.

A set of clearly defined, binding rules is feasible for a forum and does exist. However there has to be some kind of room for interpretation and difference of opinion, else moderation becomes way too difficult and way too stringent for the mods (only delete for spam if below x words, etc...).

[zbfyp]

You're angling for a staff position tho, didn't you start some thread about mods & your reporting, or am I thinking of someone else?
You've been consistent in backing/white-knighting/toadying in this sub. I like the cut of your jib, my boy!

Not really, my goodReports count is probably much lower than a lot of others. Not saying I wouldn't accept, but I'm probably not at the top of the list if I have to guess. It's much higher than the median probably, but not high enough to get very high on the leaderboard - and I did start a thread asking if there were plans to promote some staff to Global Moderators as I think that's needed to stop the influx of spambots, but obviously a quick review of what I actually just said shows that that can't really angle me for a staff position (I am suggesting existing staff are promoted, not that new staff should be made).

And this is where my cop analogy is helpful. How is it that cops, whose real life identities are known, manage to do their jobs? I understand that they have to deal with IRL folks with guns and shit, not just basement-dwelling keyboard warriors? Or are murderers and rapists less dangerous/likely to anger than bitcointalk users?

BTW, you forgot to address "set of clearly defined, binding rules." Just a heads-up, no rush.

A cop has a job. A forum moderator is a volunteer.

Please. A paid volunteer is not a volunteer. Theymos saying that "payments to moderators should be thought of as tipping" is neither here nor there. I can volunteer at BP, as long as they keep tipping me well. If you feel the pay is insubstantial, consider how many here are promoting the likes of Cloudthink ponzi for peanuts.

In addition, complaints against cops are relatively uncommon compared to what would happen if moderators had to give out their name each time they deleted a post. It's not about danger, more about an efficient use of time.

Complaints against cops aren't more common because there's a clearly defined body of law, and if these cops aren't free to do whatever their fancy tells them. Yeah, that's why.

A set of clearly defined, binding rules is feasible for a forum and does exist. However there has to be some kind of room for interpretation and difference of opinion, else moderation becomes way too difficult and way too stringent for the mods (only delete for spam if below x words, etc...).

No. There is no official set of rules, and that's why we're having this discussion. As far as wiggle room goes, how would you feel if (sorry to keep dredging up my useless analogy) IRL cops had the same "room"? I mean, they *know* you're guilty, why not just drop you on the spot and be done with it?

[DiamondCardz]

Please. A paid volunteer is not a volunteer. Theymos saying that "payments to moderators should be thought of as tipping" is neither here nor there. I can volunteer at BP, as long as they keep tipping me well. If you feel the pay is insubstantial, consider how many here are promoting the likes of Cloudthink ponzi for peanuts.

Complaints against cops aren't more common because there's a clearly defined body of law, and if these cops aren't free to do whatever their fancy tells them. Yeah, that's why.

No. There is no official set of rules, and that's why we're having this discussion. As far as wiggle room goes, how would you feel if (sorry to keep dredging up my useless analogy) IRL cops had the same "room"? I mean, they *know* you're guilty, why not just drop you on the spot and be done with it?

But there is no constant guaranteed stream of revenue that forum moderators get. Please don't pull the job argument.

There is a clearly defined body of law, the rules list. It is true that there is a clause saying moderators can interpret the rules as they like, but that is only to prevent loopholing. Looking into cases of people screaming abuse, there is usually valid interpretation of the rules and the person is just making a fuss or trying to be hyperbolic.

Cops have a duty to the public, they are public sector workers and they have to contend to a different rule-set than forum moderators. Shockingly, the real life police force works very differently to a forum staff team. Please, stop bringing up that analogy, it doesn't work here.

[DiamondCardz]

I'm not mistaken, I'm acutely aware a percentage of ad revenue goes to moderators. Sorry for the miscommunication - that's my bad - I'll rephrase: the ad revenue is not guaranteed and fluctuates (and could be 0, that's just unlikely however), therefore there is no constant guaranteed stream of revenue for forum moderators.

In real life, people get away with loopholes quite often. It's unfortunate, but it's how things are run - as that is real life and law is a much larger issue than rules on a forum. On a forum such as Bitcointalk, that isn't the case, and shouldn't be. It's not ideal and it's not totally decentralized, but in all honesty it's the best solution.

Refer to the above.

My position isn't absurd. A quick look at Meta and the amount of banned people who are quickly shown to have been account farmers, etc., shows that it would be infeasible.