That's precisely my problem. Justifiable actions != morally/ethically "right" actions. In this instance, it just means that you defend them to yourself and to your peers. They can justify them, but that doesn't make them "right."
The rules of this forum are not a moral/ethical code. If you disagree, that is fine but the moderators are going to uphold the rules of the site in their current incarnation. That is what they are there to do. If you have an issue with the rules then suggest a change but your moral/ethical code != MTGS rules, and nor does it have to for you to post here. We as posters simply have to follow the rules and make our disagreements known when we have them.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
the user formerly known as isopsycho86
DCI Judge L2 - Minneapolis
Thanks to Megabug/Sgt Chubbz and Kracked Graphics for the Sig Legacy RUBFaithless Dredge
I understand the tone of your post, believe me, but that's exactly how I feel.
I get the ideal there, but you don't think you're being a bit extreme? I mean, as someone who was once a part of the system here, what you're suggesting would make an already stressful and thankless job even more bureaucratic and glacial-paced.
But if it's an issue you feel passionately about, propose it properly. Detail the benefits for the site and how you'd implement it efficiently. Right now it's just coming across as ridiculous, but I've seen far more radical ideas become effective site policy so you never know.
I understand the tone of your post, believe me, but that's exactly how I feel.
Then you expect too much of a site that has volunteer mods, and does not charge membership fees. There are already 3 different groups that serve different purposes (Moderators, Global Moderators, Administrators) and serve their roles well (99% of the time)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
the user formerly known as isopsycho86
DCI Judge L2 - Minneapolis
Thanks to Megabug/Sgt Chubbz and Kracked Graphics for the Sig Legacy RUBFaithless Dredge
Then you expect too much of a site that has volunteer mods, and does not charge membership fees. There are already 3 different groups that serve different purposes (Moderators, Global Moderators, Administrators) and serve their roles well (99% of the time)
There's also techs and mod helpers. I don't think we have any of either right now or if we ever will again, but they also used to be a part of the staff hierarchy.
I get the ideal there, but you don't think you're being a bit extreme? I mean, as someone who was once a part of the system here, what you're suggesting would make an already stressful and thankless job even more bureaucratic and glacial-paced.
What you're asking me is what I care about more, my happiness or someone else's. The answer is "my happiness." Selfish? Absolutely. Still, what are you expecting to hear? That I'd rather be miserable so that others can be happy? That's not how life works.
But if it's an issue you feel passionately about, propose it properly. Detail the benefits for the site and how you'd implement it efficiently. Right now it's just coming across as ridiculous, but I've seen far more radical ideas become effective site policy so you never know.
There is no benefit to the Mods themselves. I'm basically asking people with power to give some of it up, and not giving them anything in return (other than some bull**** fluff about how they're responsible people who are accountable for their actions). That's how accountability works in the real world. It doesn't benefit you at all to be accountable for your actions. We'd all love to be Gods free of responsibilities/duties to others. As such, it's not worth my time or energy because it would never be implemented.
Then you expect too much of a site that has volunteer mods, and does not charge membership fees.
I want what's best for me, not what's easiest for you. This shouldn't come as some sort to surprise to you. This isn't an argument that I can win though. You have "power" and I don't. You will always win this fight for that reason. We both want what's best for ourselves, the only problem for me is that you get the final say in the end. My only hope is that enough people see eye-to-eye with me and support me in this endeavor. I have to force you to give up some of your power, I know that it would never come willingly.
Are they? Can you prove to us that they are? Is it possible for me to view instances where decisions made my moderators have been overturned by other moderators? Is it reasonably possible for someone like me to gather the evidence (either way) myself, or do I have to scour thousands of posts to find said evidence?
You can tell me that "appealing matters," but that means nothing to me if you can't prove to me that it actually does. I would like to be able to draw my own conclusions based on information that is readily available and easily accessible to me.
That's a perfectly reasonable expectation. Yes, I can provide evidence. You can find your own evidence if you believe I'm somehow biased. They're not indexed in a central location if that's what you're after, but the forum search feature means you don't have to actually wade through each Helpdesk individually. All I did was go to the Helpdesk subforum and do a forum search for posts with the word "reversed". On the first page, that revealed the following reversals:
I hope you find this helpful. If this somehow doesn't address your concerns or you're still not convinced, please let me know. I'm legitimately concerned that your opinion about the futility of the appeals process is not unique, and I want to correct that misunderstanding.
There's also techs and mod helpers. I don't think we have any of either right now or if we ever will again, but they also used to be a part of the staff hierarchy.
Yeah I'm just referring to the current incarnation of the Hierarchy.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
the user formerly known as isopsycho86
DCI Judge L2 - Minneapolis
Thanks to Megabug/Sgt Chubbz and Kracked Graphics for the Sig Legacy RUBFaithless Dredge
What you've just described amounts to nothing. At the end of the day what we have here is a bunch of moderators moderating moderators. It's no different than having the police answer to themselves. I, as well as other people, have approached moderators in PMs to appeal infractions, and have then gone on to approach a global moderator such as Yukora. It doesn't matter how many layers deep we dig, because we're going to get the same copy-and-pasted response of "I've looked into the incident and found the outcome to be justifiable."
That is easily explained by the hypothesis that the mods are, in fact, making justifiable decisions in the vast majority of cases.
You've created a system of general rules which are very much open to interpretation, and the only people that you have accountability towards are yourselves. You don't have to prove anything to us, nor justify your actions in any way. You simply make private, baseless decisions that will invariably favor your colleagues/friends. It's human nature to do so. That's why, in the real world, people are accountable to external, third parties,
Not really. The analogy to police and government is entirely inaccurate, since the government exists to serve the needs of the citizens. This site does not exist to serve the needs of you; it exists to serve the needs and desires of the site owner. Those desires happen to include having a well-functioning community that adheres closely to the rules. You are wrong on a critical point - the mods are not only accountable to themselves; they are accountable to the owner.
My personal comparison of this website to others suggests that the reason "tyrannical mods" sentiment arises so frequently here is merely the fact that other websites do not actually enforce their rules, and this one does. To put it bluntly, people are used to being able to insult and provoke others, make irrelevant or content-less posts, ignore the rules and policies of the forum, etc. When those things result in consequences at any level (even a simple warning), it leads to surprise and consternation. But that's a problem of the expectations being too low, not of mods being too strict; the better solution is not for the mods to become more lax here, but for mods (or equivalent) on other sites to step up and actually enforce their rules.
Alternately, a different perspective on the whole thing, and on the "judicial process" analogy. Our court system is based in large part on the premise that it is better for ten guilty people to go free than for one innocent to be punished. In the world of internet forums, where the absolute worst thing that can happen is merely that you stop being able to post on a particular forum, this premise ceases to be true.
The only infraction I have gotten and been a bit irked over was in a thread about UW control in Zendikar I posted that
"I cant justify paying 4$ for a fourth tectonic edge, they just arent that good IMO"
Was met with an infraction for budget discussion.
My point wasnt supposed to be as much about budget issues as it was tec edge isnt a four of, and its price point isnt helping that at all, but I guess I didnt get it across well enough. That was one of my first posts, and I didnt post much for a while after that.
I do agree with it being more of a Rules thing and less of a mod thing, however, most mods on most sites tend to get this kind of grief, no matter how good or bad they are. Being a mod is a pretty tough thing to do, and unfortunately online its much easier to come across as rude and condescending accidentally.
This whole problem could also be connected to the faceless-ness of the internet. Its pretty hard to be yourself online, so everybody gets droned together almost as one personality. You can always tell when someone new is posting because of lots of energy and excitement to try and make friends, and that's just not how it is done online.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"It's like some kind of Voltron... made of elephants??"
What you're asking me is what I care about more, my happiness or someone else's. The answer is "my happiness." Selfish? Absolutely. Still, what are you expecting to hear? That I'd rather be miserable so that others can be happy? That's not how life works.
Not knowing when someone else's warning/infraction/suspension/banning is reversed makes you miserable?
There is no benefit to the Mods themselves. I'm basically asking people with power to give some of it up, and not giving them anything in return. That's how accountability works in the real world. It doesn't benefit you at all to be accountable for your actions. We'd all love to be Gods free of responsibilities/duties to others. As such, it's not worth my time or energy because it would never be implemented.
I asked what the benefit was to the site as a whole. Believe it or not, but sometimes the mods do things that don't directly benefit them if it'll benefit the site as a whole. I didn't expect your idea to benefit the staff, I was expecting you to tell us how it'd benefit the membership.
Now, I understand that in these community issues help-forums mods are supposed to be lenient, but if anyone but a mod made a two word post anywhere else wouldn't it be grounds for a spam infraction/warning? You know, like the kind of things that OP is complaining about being infracted for?
I would recommend a poll thread, where we can evaluate the mods on their trolliness.
The issue isn't the mods. The mods are doing their job - which is making sure that everyone follows the rules - just fine, and they're doing it for free as well.
The issue is the rules. Without rules other than "don't post anything that's against the law", the discussion on MTGS would be infinitely more intelligent than it currently is. For example, threads like this wouldn't have to appear every now and then.
That being said, I think that most of the mods here fall on the "lawful" side of "lawful good"
Did you look to see what the post you are calling 'spam' is referring to?
Someone claimed one of the mods is a troll, and Madding wishes to know which one it is.
What definition of 'spam' does this fit?
Well darn my phone ate a good chunk of text while I was chEcking the definition of backseat modding. Which, I feel, is what you are accusing me of.
Yes I'd did read the original exchange, and you did a good job summarizing it.
You did not do a good job summarizing my post.
I never said, "this post qualifies as spam". I thought that if I could ask that mods can't be infracted, and therefore cant post anything infractable, I could imply that anything they post which would otherwise be infraction-worthy instead turns out as a "legal post". This also implies that mods can't be infracted for trolling and therefore can't be trolls.
To answer your final question, a post is spam when it adds little. Asking another user to extrapolate on one of their posts is one thing, but posting to ask another user to post content doesn't actually add content, and in this case would probably be better discussed in private messages.
Finally, I was trying to imply that a mod spamming a thread when the topic was mods= trolls is pretty much the ultimate way to troll.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Wizards could put $100 bills in packs and people would complain about how they were folded."
Short posts are allowed under the right circumstances. How much filler should I add if I am just asking someone to expand on their point? I am not adding content aside from asking for content. It's not spam.
Well darn my phone ate a good chunk of text while I was chEcking the definition of backseat modding. Which, I feel, is what you are accusing me of.
Yes I'd did read the original exchange, and you did a good job summarizing it.
You did not do a good job summarizing my post.
I never said, "this post qualifies as spam". I thought that if I could ask that mods can't be infracted, and therefore cant post anything infractable, I could imply that anything they post which would otherwise be infraction-worthy instead turns out as a "legal post". This also implies that mods can't be infracted for trolling and therefore can't be trolls.
To answer your final question, a post is spam when it adds little. Asking another user to extrapolate on one of their posts is one thing, but posting to ask another user to post content doesn't actually add content, and in this case would probably be better discussed in private messages.
Finally, I was trying to imply that a mod spamming a thread when the topic was mods= trolls is pretty much the ultimate way to troll.
I'm not accusing you of backseat modding. I'm trying to figure out what definition of Spam you think that falls under so I can disillusion you.
A two word post can be spam. But isn't always spam. It is, however, very hard for it not to be spam.
Questions are, actually, content. It does depend on the question, of course. A question like "Who's the best Laker" in a thread like this would be spam. But asking another member to expand on a position isn't spam.
Mods aren't non-infractable, either. While the forum software doesn't allow an actual infraction to be put on a moderator by another mod of equal or less 'rank', higher ranks CAN infract us. Further, the fact that we got infracted is put on a list of infractions for mods, something that is referenced if there's an issue.
Short posts are allowed under the right circumstances. How much filler should I add if I am just asking someone to expand on their point? I am not adding content aside from asking for content. It's not spam.
You shouldn't have to add any filler. You are a mod, and in my somewhat stable reality, are exempt from the normal rules. Apparently. No one is accusing you of spam, I may have merely implied it. As the ultimate impossible troll, hypothetically.
The point I am trying to make is, in my opinion, if you want another poster to post more, pm them. Unless you want to discuss why you want them to post more. But this would be really funny if logicx was your sockpuppet. But now which would make too much sense since you are both so awesome.
Not to beat a dread horse or anything, but spamming/= short post. As far as I know, there are no rules against short posting.
Spamming is any post with little content or contribution. To take you a little out of context, " I am not adding content... It's not spam". How can this look like textbook denial?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Wizards could put $100 bills in packs and people would complain about how they were folded."
You're allowed to state your position, you know. You don't have to use sarcastic syntax to ask it all as a backwards hypothetical. It just makes your post confusing. You insinuated that I was spamming, so I corrected you. That's based on the rules, not on me being a moderator. I've been asking short questions like that the whole time I've been a member here. Just something I do. Maybe it means I am daft, I don't know. All I know is sometimes I want to know more about someones point pertaining to a thread topic, and I sure don't feel obligated to PM them about it. If they don't feel like expanding they can ignore me.
Re-reading the second half of your post, it seems like you do understand, so I'm not sure what you're trying to say. I think we're on the same page.
'Content' has always been a problematic word when it comes to spamming.
A better word to use is 'contribution'. And asking a question to expand on a topic is certainly a contribution, if only a small one. You're working on getting information out.
The reason PMing a user wouldn't work is that would either require them to edit (which is fine, if no one else has posted yet) or double post (which usually is not okay). Asking in thread, everyone can see the exchange. A user could get 15 pms asking for clarification. Or just one post in thread.
Its hard to say whether installing globals/admins to continually keep an eye on certain mods is a good solution. I would certainly feel better about not having to terminate anyone, and it avoids any potential bad blood or worries about us being on a vindictive power trip. On the other hand, it might make for extra, unnecessary work for the supervisors. But perhaps I'm underestimating how quickly people can change and improve their performance, if they're told squarely and directly that it's not satisfactory.
Hmm. Here's a slightly different idea, which is somewhat in line with how I would hope to be treated if I were the problematic mod in a similar situation.
1. We post a global/admin to oversee those moderators who we feel are in need of a close eye.
2. We inform that moderator that in lieu of a termination, we're appointing a mentor to retrain, review, and supervise their actions, with authority to overrule them, until that mentor recommends that we either terminate them or return them to normal status.
3. To cover moderators who may accumulate infraction-worthy posts while tenured and insure accountability, we establish a new policy in which we record and date infractions that would otherwise be issued to a moderator, in a thread dedicated to that purpose.
As part of the site-wide revamp, we're moving forward with an initiative that is absolutely no fun at all, but is indispensable to keeping things running smoothly. Moderator performance is the paramount issue in making sure that users are satisfied, feel that they are being treated fairly, and have confidence in our leadership.
In the global and admin areas, there has been considerable hand-wringing on how to handle this area, which is only made more difficult and delicate due to our having a close-knit team, with many personal friendships involved. Nor is it worth ignoring the emotional investment that many of our moderators put into the site. We know that most of our personnel, even when they make mistakes, are seeking to help make things better. Nevertheless, for the good of the site, it may be necessary for us to part ways if it becomes evident that the staff member is better suited to act as an ordinary member of the community.
The first option we considered was ruthless application of our ability to terminate moderators. When considering moderators with a consistent record of reported problems, there are good arguments for making a quick, clean break. That option isn't entirely off the table, and it would also certainly be applied in certain situations where misconduct (flaming, abuse of position, etc.) warrants immediate action.
But in an effort to treat each member of the staff with the regard that we hope would be extended to us in the same situation, we've decided on the policy quoted above. Instead of immediate termination, we will be appointing a mentor to closely oversee and observe moderators who have persistently led site admin and the userbase to question their judgment regarding effective communication with users, good policy-making decisions, and appropriate issuing of warnings and infractions. This mentor will also have authority to recommend the termination of that moderator, but the mentor's recommendation will not be the only factor taken into consideration. In order to maintain moderator status, we would like to see swift and lasting correction of the issues that led to probationary status.
We would also like to begin tracking infractions for active moderators, to help insure accountability. Rather than issuing a warning or infraction directly to the moderator's account (which would block lounge access), if action on the post is deemed necessary, a moderator will issue mod-text to the post, then contact a global mod to add that infraction to the moderator's record in an internal record-keeping thread.
As to specific instances, I did remember seeing one some time ago.
If anyone has an issue with staff members or staff actions, please remember that you can contact Yukora especially, or other members of the admin team if Yukora is unavailable (each of us admins has a day job, too, and sometimes things get busy). We do take these reports very seriously, and in the past two months since I've come on board we've canned more than half a dozen moderators, with continuing review in a number of other cases.
But if there's a problem, the best way for us to pinpoint it is to hear about specifics from the userbase. So send those our way, and we'll take it from there.
I do think our roster is improving dramatically, and I believe that we're nurturing an increasing trend of professionalism and courtesy on the part of the staff. But our work isn't quite finished yet, so send us those reports in the meantime. We'll also keep working on revising the forum rules, and the subforum rules, and potentially adding moderator guidelines for issuing infractions.
The rules of this forum are not a moral/ethical code. If you disagree, that is fine but the moderators are going to uphold the rules of the site in their current incarnation. That is what they are there to do. If you have an issue with the rules then suggest a change but your moral/ethical code != MTGS rules, and nor does it have to for you to post here. We as posters simply have to follow the rules and make our disagreements known when we have them.
DCI Judge L2 - Minneapolis
Thanks to Megabug/Sgt Chubbz and Kracked Graphics for the Sig
Legacy
RUBFaithless Dredge
I understand the tone of your post, believe me, but that's exactly how I feel.
Guilds of Ravnica - Commander 2018 - Core 2019 - Battlebond - Dominaria - Rivals of Ixalan - Ixalan - Commander 2017 - Hour of Devastation - Amonket - Aether Revolt - Commander 2016 - Kaladesh - Conspiracy 2 - Eldritch Moon - Shadows Over Innistrad - Oath of the Gatewatch - Commander 2015 - Battle for Zendikar - Magic Origins - Dragons of Tarkir
Green - Blue - Red - White - Gold
I get the ideal there, but you don't think you're being a bit extreme? I mean, as someone who was once a part of the system here, what you're suggesting would make an already stressful and thankless job even more bureaucratic and glacial-paced.
But if it's an issue you feel passionately about, propose it properly. Detail the benefits for the site and how you'd implement it efficiently. Right now it's just coming across as ridiculous, but I've seen far more radical ideas become effective site policy so you never know.
Archatmos
Excellion
Fracture: Israfiel (WBR), Wujal (URG), Valedon (GUB), Amduat (BGW), Paladris (RWU)
Collision (Set Two of the Fracture Block)
Quest for the Forsaken (Set Two of the Excellion Block)
Katingal: Plane of Chains
Then you expect too much of a site that has volunteer mods, and does not charge membership fees. There are already 3 different groups that serve different purposes (Moderators, Global Moderators, Administrators) and serve their roles well (99% of the time)
DCI Judge L2 - Minneapolis
Thanks to Megabug/Sgt Chubbz and Kracked Graphics for the Sig
Legacy
RUBFaithless Dredge
There's also techs and mod helpers. I don't think we have any of either right now or if we ever will again, but they also used to be a part of the staff hierarchy.
Archatmos
Excellion
Fracture: Israfiel (WBR), Wujal (URG), Valedon (GUB), Amduat (BGW), Paladris (RWU)
Collision (Set Two of the Fracture Block)
Quest for the Forsaken (Set Two of the Excellion Block)
Katingal: Plane of Chains
What you're asking me is what I care about more, my happiness or someone else's. The answer is "my happiness." Selfish? Absolutely. Still, what are you expecting to hear? That I'd rather be miserable so that others can be happy? That's not how life works.
There is no benefit to the Mods themselves. I'm basically asking people with power to give some of it up, and not giving them anything in return (other than some bull**** fluff about how they're responsible people who are accountable for their actions). That's how accountability works in the real world. It doesn't benefit you at all to be accountable for your actions. We'd all love to be Gods free of responsibilities/duties to others. As such, it's not worth my time or energy because it would never be implemented.
What I expect != what I want. I want that to happen. I don't expect it to for an instant.
I want what's best for me, not what's easiest for you. This shouldn't come as some sort to surprise to you. This isn't an argument that I can win though. You have "power" and I don't. You will always win this fight for that reason. We both want what's best for ourselves, the only problem for me is that you get the final say in the end. My only hope is that enough people see eye-to-eye with me and support me in this endeavor. I have to force you to give up some of your power, I know that it would never come willingly.
Guilds of Ravnica - Commander 2018 - Core 2019 - Battlebond - Dominaria - Rivals of Ixalan - Ixalan - Commander 2017 - Hour of Devastation - Amonket - Aether Revolt - Commander 2016 - Kaladesh - Conspiracy 2 - Eldritch Moon - Shadows Over Innistrad - Oath of the Gatewatch - Commander 2015 - Battle for Zendikar - Magic Origins - Dragons of Tarkir
Green - Blue - Red - White - Gold
Yeah I'm just referring to the current incarnation of the Hierarchy.
DCI Judge L2 - Minneapolis
Thanks to Megabug/Sgt Chubbz and Kracked Graphics for the Sig
Legacy
RUBFaithless Dredge
Not really. The analogy to police and government is entirely inaccurate, since the government exists to serve the needs of the citizens. This site does not exist to serve the needs of you; it exists to serve the needs and desires of the site owner. Those desires happen to include having a well-functioning community that adheres closely to the rules. You are wrong on a critical point - the mods are not only accountable to themselves; they are accountable to the owner.
My personal comparison of this website to others suggests that the reason "tyrannical mods" sentiment arises so frequently here is merely the fact that other websites do not actually enforce their rules, and this one does. To put it bluntly, people are used to being able to insult and provoke others, make irrelevant or content-less posts, ignore the rules and policies of the forum, etc. When those things result in consequences at any level (even a simple warning), it leads to surprise and consternation. But that's a problem of the expectations being too low, not of mods being too strict; the better solution is not for the mods to become more lax here, but for mods (or equivalent) on other sites to step up and actually enforce their rules.
Alternately, a different perspective on the whole thing, and on the "judicial process" analogy. Our court system is based in large part on the premise that it is better for ten guilty people to go free than for one innocent to be punished. In the world of internet forums, where the absolute worst thing that can happen is merely that you stop being able to post on a particular forum, this premise ceases to be true.
"I cant justify paying 4$ for a fourth tectonic edge, they just arent that good IMO"
Was met with an infraction for budget discussion.
My point wasnt supposed to be as much about budget issues as it was tec edge isnt a four of, and its price point isnt helping that at all, but I guess I didnt get it across well enough. That was one of my first posts, and I didnt post much for a while after that.
I do agree with it being more of a Rules thing and less of a mod thing, however, most mods on most sites tend to get this kind of grief, no matter how good or bad they are. Being a mod is a pretty tough thing to do, and unfortunately online its much easier to come across as rude and condescending accidentally.
This whole problem could also be connected to the faceless-ness of the internet. Its pretty hard to be yourself online, so everybody gets droned together almost as one personality. You can always tell when someone new is posting because of lots of energy and excitement to try and make friends, and that's just not how it is done online.
Credit goes to Brofoux for the Sig pic.
Current Modern Deck
Black Licorice
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?p=11006564#post11006564
Not knowing when someone else's warning/infraction/suspension/banning is reversed makes you miserable?
I asked what the benefit was to the site as a whole. Believe it or not, but sometimes the mods do things that don't directly benefit them if it'll benefit the site as a whole. I didn't expect your idea to benefit the staff, I was expecting you to tell us how it'd benefit the membership.
Basically, I was asking you to put up or shut up.
Archatmos
Excellion
Fracture: Israfiel (WBR), Wujal (URG), Valedon (GUB), Amduat (BGW), Paladris (RWU)
Collision (Set Two of the Fracture Block)
Quest for the Forsaken (Set Two of the Excellion Block)
Katingal: Plane of Chains
Now, I understand that in these community issues help-forums mods are supposed to be lenient, but if anyone but a mod made a two word post anywhere else wouldn't it be grounds for a spam infraction/warning? You know, like the kind of things that OP is complaining about being infracted for?
I would recommend a poll thread, where we can evaluate the mods on their trolliness.
That being said, I think that most of the mods here fall on the "lawful" side of "lawful good"
Tribute to Dr. Jeebus
Not a little Sheeple.
Someone claimed one of the mods is a troll, and Madding wishes to know which one it is.
What definition of 'spam' does this fit?
My helpdesk should you need me.
The fact that if particular staff members use gimmick accounts to shill position on an issue makes this an admirable but moot point.
derp.
Well darn my phone ate a good chunk of text while I was chEcking the definition of backseat modding. Which, I feel, is what you are accusing me of.
Yes I'd did read the original exchange, and you did a good job summarizing it.
You did not do a good job summarizing my post.
I never said, "this post qualifies as spam". I thought that if I could ask that mods can't be infracted, and therefore cant post anything infractable, I could imply that anything they post which would otherwise be infraction-worthy instead turns out as a "legal post". This also implies that mods can't be infracted for trolling and therefore can't be trolls.
To answer your final question, a post is spam when it adds little. Asking another user to extrapolate on one of their posts is one thing, but posting to ask another user to post content doesn't actually add content, and in this case would probably be better discussed in private messages.
Finally, I was trying to imply that a mod spamming a thread when the topic was mods= trolls is pretty much the ultimate way to troll.
Tribute to Dr. Jeebus
Not a little Sheeple.
I'm not accusing you of backseat modding. I'm trying to figure out what definition of Spam you think that falls under so I can disillusion you.
A two word post can be spam. But isn't always spam. It is, however, very hard for it not to be spam.
Questions are, actually, content. It does depend on the question, of course. A question like "Who's the best Laker" in a thread like this would be spam. But asking another member to expand on a position isn't spam.
Mods aren't non-infractable, either. While the forum software doesn't allow an actual infraction to be put on a moderator by another mod of equal or less 'rank', higher ranks CAN infract us. Further, the fact that we got infracted is put on a list of infractions for mods, something that is referenced if there's an issue.
My helpdesk should you need me.
You shouldn't have to add any filler. You are a mod, and in my somewhat stable reality, are exempt from the normal rules. Apparently. No one is accusing you of spam, I may have merely implied it. As the ultimate impossible troll, hypothetically.
The point I am trying to make is, in my opinion, if you want another poster to post more, pm them. Unless you want to discuss why you want them to post more. But this would be really funny if logicx was your sockpuppet. But now which would make too much sense since you are both so awesome.
Not to beat a dread horse or anything, but spamming/= short post. As far as I know, there are no rules against short posting.
Spamming is any post with little content or contribution. To take you a little out of context, " I am not adding content... It's not spam". How can this look like textbook denial?
Tribute to Dr. Jeebus
Not a little Sheeple.
Re-reading the second half of your post, it seems like you do understand, so I'm not sure what you're trying to say. I think we're on the same page.
A better word to use is 'contribution'. And asking a question to expand on a topic is certainly a contribution, if only a small one. You're working on getting information out.
The reason PMing a user wouldn't work is that would either require them to edit (which is fine, if no one else has posted yet) or double post (which usually is not okay). Asking in thread, everyone can see the exchange. A user could get 15 pms asking for clarification. Or just one post in thread.
My helpdesk should you need me.
Tribute to Dr. Jeebus
Not a little Sheeple.
You mean this?
As to specific instances, I did remember seeing one some time ago.
That I did.
I also got one for flaming in a game a while ago.
We're not immune to getting infractions.
Tired of corporate corruption ruining your favorite MtG site?
Come join ours!!
We even have Mafia!!
But if there's a problem, the best way for us to pinpoint it is to hear about specifics from the userbase. So send those our way, and we'll take it from there.
I do think our roster is improving dramatically, and I believe that we're nurturing an increasing trend of professionalism and courtesy on the part of the staff. But our work isn't quite finished yet, so send us those reports in the meantime. We'll also keep working on revising the forum rules, and the subforum rules, and potentially adding moderator guidelines for issuing infractions.