Quis custodiet ipsos custodes

[macgeek]

Is the question on my mind:


Jonathan

[pam]

Are you speaking of here on the Chat? Or in our beloved government?

Pam

[macgeek]

Are you speaking of here on the Chat? Or in our beloved government?

Pam


Yes.

Jonathan

[pam]

For those of you who are new, there are 4 moderators on the chat. We abide by a series of rules set up by Frank, who owns the chat. Decisions are made jointly, or after discussion among ourselves, usually. The moderators have the right to moderate or edit posts - or delete them completely.

Among other things, we strive for civility on the chat, and several of us have a long history with the chat - we know which threads will likely blow up. Several of us have been involved in some very uncomfortable times. So... that said, we guards guard the guards. You may not like it, but that's the way it is here. We're certainly open to PMs about situations, but we do have the final word. :)

Regarding the government? I haven't the faintest.

Pam

[hellphish]

The real question is "what are the guards guarding?"

[pam]

And among conspiracy theorists, that will always be the question. :)
Pam

[KSagal]

And among conspiracy theorists, that will always be the question. :)
Pam


Might it not also be the question for those who did not understand your cryptic comment?

By saying, " We guards guard the guards" is that not the same as saying we guard ourselves? And if so, If we guard our selves, meaning the moderators guard themselves, but call themselves guards, then it seems that they see their roll, by Pam's definition, as a roll of guard...

What is it that you are guarding?

[pam]

The original quote was "who guards the guards" - and I asked Jon if he meant on SC or in the government.

He said "yes" - Since "guards" in that context would mean moderators, I went on to explain some of the behind the scenes process for SC in terms of moderation.

Again, those who are great on conspiracy theories will not believe any of it, however, they will need to pretend like they do, because it's what WE go by, and the decisions we make.

Pam

[hellphish]

Ya... I have no idea what is going on at this point, totally lost, but I do know that something is going on.

[KSagal]

The original quote was "who guards the guards" - and I asked Jon if he meant on SC or in the government.

He said "yes" - Since "guards" in that context would mean moderators, I went on to explain some of the behind the scenes process for SC in terms of moderation.

Again, those who are great on conspiracy theories will not believe any of it, however, they will need to pretend like they do, because it's what WE go by, and the decisions we make.

Pam




And of course, those of us that do not believe in conspiracy theories will have trouble understanding all the subtrefuge.

Some of us are like me, and not too bright. We may not be as good with the word smithing, but like it simple and direct. An occasional straight answer is nice to hear.

[hellphish]

And of course, those of us that do not believe in conspiracy theories will have trouble understanding all the subtrefuge.

Some of us are like me, and not too bright. We may not be as good with the word smithing, but like it simple and direct. An occasional straight answer is nice to hear.

AMEN Brother!

[pam]

So far, no subtrifuge. Those who think there is are conspiracy theorists, or have their own ax to grind. If we've not made it clear enough, let us know, and we'll try to explain things in a different way.

Pam

[quade]

If we've not made it clear enough, let us know, and we'll try to explain things in a different way.

Pam,

There's yer problem right there . . . you're engaging when it isn't required.

Et al.,

The site owner and moderators are in control of the web site. All of us, including but not limited to; regional representatives, dealers, users, past presidents, Dean Kamen and general boneheads such as myself are here at their pleasure. If we don't like the rules of the site, fine, we can go somewhere else and start our own groups. Done. No further explanation is required by the owners or moderators.

[pam]

Thanks, Quade. I'll keep that in mind <G>. I do think it's nice, though, that newbies - who might not actually stroll through the FAQs, get some sort of idea of how things are done.

Pam

[i2Glide]

I'm new here and quade has stated the rules pretty well but missed a point which I see on the other BBs I play on. There the ops and mods are always very open about why they did something. That always makes everybody realize they did the right thing.

If the ops or mods are hiding things then you get questions like the one at the begining of this post because people wonder what happened.

[pam]

Well, and we have found that what this does is it opens up a whole nother can of worms where people feel they must comment on every little thing the moderator does.

We'll keep it the way it is, i2
Pam

[hellphish]

i2Glide: First off, let me welcome you to the forums! I'm sure you'll find a wealth of helpful information here, and lots of friendly people.

Second, you're right. Most boards online keep very public lists of who was banned and why, as well as an infraction log. At the very least, any edits made by a moderator are clearly labelled as such and are never simply swept under the carpet. How else would new members know how to act? In the past, Segwaychat's moderators have been bad about keeping their policy public and have been spotty in their application of that policy, but lately I have got the impression that some of them are at least trying to improve.

Again, welcome to the family!

EDIT: Pam, what is so bad about comments? People comment on our president, and do so openly, and I think nobody would disagree that the ability to comment makes our country one of the greatest.

[JohnG]

Having run online communities for the past decade, I'll give you a little insight of what's "wrong" with comments on actions. I wouldn't say, "wrong" so much as, "wearing people down to the point where it's no longer any fun and therefore difficult to find new mods to volunteer to help out." That's the problem -- the more every little decision or action is questioned and second-guessed and analyzed, the less people you find willing to step forward to volunteer their time for a thankless task.

So by limiting such discussion, it means the admins and mods can do their work without fear of having to spend most of their time in a community defending their actions.

The "check" in this system is that you have a team of mods, as we do here, that run things by one another and ensure nothing smacks of a personal vendetta or the like. And with the team we have here, there's no problem in any one of us calling another on something that didn't sit right with them.

Look, nothing anyone could come up with is "ideal." But we do the best we can with what limited resources we have (e.g., people's time and energy), and it usually works well.

And if there's one person I have no doubts about their abilities to see through some of the members' BS around here, it's pam! ;)

John

[pam]

I have never openly said that, and I have never done it. I don't even know how. I am pretty sure I know who said it to you, since I was wildly accused of it this morning, but whoever said it was being less than honest. And that person is trying to manipulate the forums (and you) right now...
Pam

[BillPaxton]

I have vbulletin, not the latest version but nearly current that we use on an internal intranet - we've only had it around three months but I've learned it pretty well. I am fairly sure no one can read a PM except for the poster and the recipient(s). I *may* be wrong about this, but I can tell you with 100% certainty that a couple of months ago I sold a part to someone that forgot to pay me and did not frequently check email or SC - I was fairly certain I had been ripped off and I had managed to delete the name and address of the person I shipped to and could not remember the username. I asked all of the mods separately to see if they could trace the PMs and each gave the same reply independently - we can't see PMs and if we can, we don't know how. They offered other means to help me find the lost name and address so I have no doubt this advice from each was in earnest. Incidentally, the user in question remembered a week or so later and not only paid but felt so badly about it that they purchased a nice gift card for me that made the transaction less than beneficial! (just goes to show, you can be SO convinced you are right about something and be SO far from the truth that its embarrassing when you see how wrong you were)

[bentbiker]

I have never openly said that, and I have never done it. I don't even know how.Has a post been deleted? Said or done what?

I do not think that is correctAre you saying you don't think Pam is correct in saying that she has never said that?

I know it saves a few bytes of space on the HD to not quote the person you are talking to, but it really makes it hard to follow.

[JohnG]

The person who pam was replying to decided to delete his own post after pam had already replied to it, so it's a little hard to understand what she was replying to.

The question was about PMs. Yes, they can be accessed via the database when absolutely necessary, but on a regular basis does anyone do this? No, we have neither the interest, inclination or time to do so. We keep a log of all such accesses, so I know this for a fact.

John

[i2Glide]

BillPaxton, it is possible to access and read the PMs if you are an op or moderator. It really is not that hard though it does take a few minutes.

In vBulletin if a member isn't allowed to post their PMs can either be blocked or be filtered, just like their posts would be filtered or blocked. It really isn't that hard.

vBulletin also has a filtering tool that gives the ops and mods the power to highlight or block certain words. It is common to use it for cuss words but sometimes ops and mods will use it to eliminate website references, insert characters in email addresses, or delete stuff they don't think proper. It says on the registration page that segwaychat uses the filter so maybe what was mentioned was automatic.

[i2Glide]

I have a question. Down in the right hand corner it shows who is reading this post.

Right now there are 2 members and 1 guest but only one member name (mine) is showing. Is it only ops that can hide their loginid or can members do it also?

[JohnM]

I have a question. Down in the right hand corner it shows who is reading this post.

Right now there are 2 members and 1 guest but only one member name (mine) is showing. Is it only ops that can hide their loginid or can members do it also?

You can do it. It's called 'Invisible Mode' in the Edit Options of the User CP.

[hellphish]

I have vbulletin, not the latest version but nearly current that we use on an internal intranet - we've only had it around three months but I've learned it pretty well. I am fairly sure no one can read a PM except for the poster and the recipient(s). I *may* be wrong about this, but I can tell you with 100% certainty that a couple of months ago I sold a part to someone that forgot to pay me and did not frequently check email or SC - I was fairly certain I had been ripped off and I had managed to delete the name and address of the person I shipped to and could not remember the username. I asked all of the mods separately to see if they could trace the PMs and each gave the same reply independently - we can't see PMs and if we can, we don't know how. They offered other means to help me find the lost name and address so I have no doubt this advice from each was in earnest. Incidentally, the user in question remembered a week or so later and not only paid but felt so badly about it that they purchased a nice gift card for me that made the transaction less than beneficial! (just goes to show, you can be SO convinced you are right about something and be SO far from the truth that its embarrassing when you see how wrong you were)

Exactly. It was my mistake, I'm embarassed about it, so I deleted the post. Again, appologies.

[Eric Payne]

Exactly. It was my mistake, I'm embarassed about it, so I deleted the post. Again, appologies.

Sometimes, Hellphish, even deleting a post doesn't delete the post. I posted a few nights ago in reference to a censorship concern I had. Almost immediately after posting the message, I thought better of it. I couldn't find where to simply delete the post, so I edited the post, removing all the text, and replacing it with the single phrase: "EDITED AND REMOVED BY POSTER."

I double-checked about 15 minutes later to make sure post was gone. It was. I went to bed.

The next morning, I wake up, get online, come here... and not only is the full text of the original message there, it's gotten a response. Though I should not have been able to, as it was over 3 hours since the original posting, and that posting had received a response, the "Edit" button was available for that message. I deleted it all, again, and left a similar message that I, the poster, had thought better of making that post, that I had earlier completely deleted the text of that post, and that someone else had reposted that post.

Right after that, I got a message from one of the moderators that, was, essentially: "Oh, did you want that deleted? I moved it to another topic heading..." Only when I replied in the affirmative did that moderator remove the posting.

[gbrandwood]

Is the question on my mindDo you often think in Latin? Cool... :cool:

[macgeek]

Do you often think in Latin? Cool... :cool:

The only Latin I know is a Girl at the Spanish restaurant who makes a mean piyaya

Jonathan

[pam]

Thanks for letting us know, Eric, this should not have happened this way, and may be a glitch. For one thing, once a post is edited and removed by poster, that information should have been gone, as I understand it. Like backspacing over text - that text is history. As a mod, when I see something like that, I'll move the empty shell to the back, or delete it completely. I'm wondering if somehow, once you edited it, the edit didn't get saved - and the normal response on a thread that is about community issues that might be sitting in another forum would be to move it into the other forum.

Sounds like it got worked out, though.

Pam

Sometimes, Hellphish, even deleting a post doesn't delete the post. I posted a few nights ago in reference to a censorship concern I had. Almost immediately after posting the message, I thought better of it. I couldn't find where to simply delete the post, so I edited the post, removing all the text, and replacing it with the single phrase: "EDITED AND REMOVED BY POSTER."

I double-checked about 15 minutes later to make sure post was gone. It was. I went to bed.

The next morning, I wake up, get online, come here... and not only is the full text of the original message there, it's gotten a response. Though I should not have been able to, as it was over 3 hours since the original posting, and that posting had received a response, the "Edit" button was available for that message. I deleted it all, again, and left a similar message that I, the poster, had thought better of making that post, that I had earlier completely deleted the text of that post, and that someone else had reposted that post.

Right after that, I got a message from one of the moderators that, was, essentially: "Oh, did you want that deleted? I moved it to another topic heading..." Only when I replied in the affirmative did that moderator remove the posting.

[Eric Payne]

Thanks for letting us know, Eric... I'm wondering if somehow, once you edited it, the edit didn't get saved...

No, Pam.

The moderator resurrected and re-posted the post, as I was told by that moderator when that moderator responded to a query I made.

Oh, I'd also like to say some of the "editing" and "censorship" has become just a little juvenile.

My sig line now reflects my political leanings.

For a very short period of time, my sig line said: "Defecation occurs; existence continues," which is my motto in life, and a very, very clean way of saying "something happens, life goes on."

That same moderator asked me to delete the line, as that moderator didn't feel "feces" should be referred to in the forums.

[pam]

Well, that's wierd, because resurrecting a deleted post is not something I know how to do.
Pam

No, Pam.

The moderator resurrected and re-posted the post, as I was told by that moderator when that moderator responded to a query I made.

[Eric Payne]

Well, that's wierd, because resurrecting a deleted post is not something I know how to do.
Pam

You weren't the moderator involved, Pam. :)

[pam]

I know that, Eric :). I was just surprised it could actually happen. It didn't make sense to me, given what I know. But then, it's pretty obvious I don't know everything. :p

Pam

You weren't the moderator involved, Pam. :)