Senate's gone, how about... a Star Chamber?

[Coyote]

Y'know, people who are basing their objections on the rationale that" this is just another Senate!" Clearly are not reading what I am writing. I have explained numerous times now how this is NOT another Senate, and how this avoids the problems that were endemic to the Senate. If anything, this would be a Neighborhood Watch at most.

So, frankly, if folks are too lazy to read through what is written, I'm pretty much just going to ignore them.

As to Thanas's question, this would be a good argument against having to reform a body over and over again, which would make life more of a pain for the Mods-- the opposite of my intent with the proposal. So, obviously a strike against the "dissolve and reform" idea. Fine. At least that's on topic.

This may be nothing more than encouraging people not involved in debates to keep an eye on things from time to time and alert a Mod if things are getting to bickering above beyond. It doesn't have o be formal or organized.

Believe it or not, I'm not trying to "win" something here, I'm trying to discuss ways to help out. I know-- the whole idea that someone here isn't trying to WIN! Is alien, but it does happen.

[Simon_Jester]

The one thing that I think is important and worth having in a 'black box' mod system is some body of material that serves as a precedent visible to people outside the box. Something written up as a supplement to the codified rules, some relatively recent statements by the mods on their rulings, or on the sort of thing that leads to temp-bans and titling. Since we don't have actual public discussion of mod decisions before they happen, I think we'd do well to have other kinds of collective access to what the forum's 'jurisprudence' looks like.

Parting Shots already serves that function pretty well. Adding something like a "worst of X," or something like the Show Trial threads but more serious, would cap it off very nicely. Maybe just a link thread written by mods that lists the Parting Shots threads of some of our higher-profile idiots, along with a list of the infractions that got them banned.

And that's not something I really want to push for in a big way, it's just a... call it a suggestion box thing. I think it would be worthwhile, and I think it could be done without an undue burden of extra work.

Any ideas about adding extra bureaucracy or complexity, or creating special institutions to censure obnoxious posters over and above our existing mods strikes me as kind of pointless.

[Sea Skimmer]

Y'know, people who are basing their objections on the rationale that" this is just another Senate!" Clearly are not reading what I am writing. I have explained numerous times now how this is NOT another Senate, and how this avoids the problems that were endemic to the Senate. If anything, this would be a Neighborhood Watch at most.

A forum neighborhood watch would be exactly the same someone REPORTING A POST to the moderator! As in something which is already hard coded into the forum! That is NOT what you suggested. Police take tips from a neighborhood watch; they don't summon it up to help judge people who did something and was already caught.

So, frankly, if folks are too lazy to read through what is written, I'm pretty much just going to ignore them.

Hey asshat, I did read what you posted. In fact in one of your very first lines you attempt to say the senate was not the problem, only the size! That does not support you claim that this is not just an attempt to revive the senate with different rules. In fact it is very obvious that you want the senate back in a chopped down form. Your attempts to draw a distinction are meaningless because you are basing it on the insistence that just because a new 'body' doesn't have the exact same rules as the old senate, its not a new senate. That's just pure bullshit. We have mods, we have admins, if they need more help then we can appoint more of them. Trying to add another layer of forum government is just retarded.

[Big Phil]

Coyote, what exactly is the problem for which you're proposing this solution?

It was noted (most recently in the IvP moratorium thread) that there is no "middle ground" between "ordinary posting" and "banhammer". Things like titling and temp-bans have largely fallen to the wayside, with the only real consequences for poor behavior being a ban.

In the same thread, Edi said that things like IvP threads were a time suck and annoying to watch over, and tended to be distracting.

Something like this would allow Mods to see to it that a potential problem stays monitored, without having to become a babysitter.

Except that that's not true.

Mods and Dalton warn people, often repeatedly, before they take action. The ones who end up getting banned simply fail to heed the warnings and end up throwing a gigantic hissy fit. The only person I can think of in the last few years who got the ban stick for questionable reasons was the dude who was claiming to be related to Zeus, and even he was warned repeatedly to knock it off.

It took several days for darthy, over the STvSw, to come to a moderator's attention, and even he (with his inability to comprehend written English or to post a coherent argument) hasn't been banned yet. He's been warned to shape up and stop making shit up, but not banned. Do we really need a committee of ten dipshits telling Vympel how to do his job, or should we perhaps just let him do his job?

I appreciate your suggestion and efforts to help out, but the fact is we've got the report button if we need to tell a mod about a shitty poster, and they seem to do their jobs just fine. The people whining about extremes of mod action either aren't paying attention or have a stick up their ass because they can't win an argument without a mod coming in to ban their opponent.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

The one thing that I think is important and worth having in a 'black box' mod system is some body of material that serves as a precedent visible to people outside the box. Something written up as a supplement to the codified rules, some relatively recent statements by the mods on their rulings, or on the sort of thing that leads to temp-bans and titling. Since we don't have actual public discussion of mod decisions before they happen, I think we'd do well to have other kinds of collective access to what the forum's 'jurisprudence' looks like.

I may not be on a lot of forums, but I can't think of any that make moderating decisions as transparent as folks seem to be asking for here. On other forums, moderation just sort of happens, frequently with little explanation beyond "This post has been deleted by Moderator X. Reason: Please read the rules, User Y."

None of those other forums seem to be suffering from any manner of existential crisis due to opaque moderation. Nor is this one.

With that being said, we do have a thread on reviews of moderator decisions. Which, I note, hasn't been updated since December. Which tells me that either, A) People really aren't that unhappy with moderating decisions (so they're not generating complaints for review through approved channels,) B) People would rather complain in threads like this/snipe at the mods in one-off posts/backseat mod instead of PMing the moderators, or C) the moderators are busy people with lives, so there could well be a backlog.

Parting Shots already serves that function pretty well. Adding something like a "worst of X," or something like the Show Trial threads but more serious, would cap it off very nicely. Maybe just a link thread written by mods that lists the Parting Shots threads of some of our higher-profile idiots, along with a list of the infractions that got them banned.

You mean like this? Or, possibly, this? (Although both are presently in need of an active maintainer.)

And that's not something I really want to push for in a big way, it's just a... call it a suggestion box thing. I think it would be worthwhile, and I think it could be done without an undue burden of extra work.

You mean like this? Or maybe this, if you can get some of his time.

~~~

Though, while we're tossing out crazy ideas: How about the board just appoint an ombudsman or two? A board member who has access to the moderator forum, but would be given no actual moderating power, or have little moderating power to begin with, (so they'd have no dog in the fight, and this job could be a very busy one possibly suited to a hyperactive insomniac . . . or the sort of job that, say, ablative armor, might face: That is, boring, briefly exciting, and then over.)

It'd be this person who'd own the 'Suggestion Box' and the other instruments of transparency. It'd be their job to sort through all the public's grievances and advocate the most pressing of them to the mods; and explain the reasoning behind moderator decisions. And to stave off the inevitable complaints about how the ombudsman has become wholly corrupted by The Man, the position could even be a rotating one; where a new one is appointed or elected to terms of some pre-determined length.

[Simon_Jester]

The one thing that I think is important and worth having in a 'black box' mod system is some body of material that serves as a precedent visible to people outside the box. Something written up as a supplement to the codified rules, some relatively recent statements by the mods on their rulings, or on the sort of thing that leads to temp-bans and titling. Since we don't have actual public discussion of mod decisions before they happen, I think we'd do well to have other kinds of collective access to what the forum's 'jurisprudence' looks like.

I may not be on a lot of forums, but I can't think of any that make moderating decisions as transparent as folks seem to be asking for here. On other forums, moderation just sort of happens, frequently with little explanation beyond "This post has been deleted by Moderator X. Reason: Please read the rules, User Y."

None of those other forums seem to be suffering from any manner of existential crisis due to opaque moderation. Nor is this one.

Agreed.

I'm not proposing moderator review. I just like the idea of having an archive of past moderator decisions. Not so much because "I've seen this on other forums and it's good," as because I think it might be a good idea that wouldn't require much work to implement.

Parting Shots already serves that function pretty well. Adding something like a "worst of X," or something like the Show Trial threads but more serious, would cap it off very nicely. Maybe just a link thread written by mods that lists the Parting Shots threads of some of our higher-profile idiots, along with a list of the infractions that got them banned.

You mean like this? Or, possibly, this? (Although both are presently in need of an active maintainer.)

Actually yes, that would be great; I hadn't thought of those threads because they haven't been updated since 2005. Sorry.

And that's not something I really want to push for in a big way, it's just a... call it a suggestion box thing. I think it would be worthwhile, and I think it could be done without an undue burden of extra work.

You mean like this? Or maybe this, if you can get some of his time.

Since this is something that could be trivially implemented without supermod/admin authority, pretty much any mod could make their own call on it. I don't want to spam the PM boxes of half a dozen or more mods with this idea. Putting it in one public-access place rather than a swarm of PMs struck me as a reasonable idea at the time.

Maybe I was wrong.

[Darth Fanboy]

Well, I'm trying to come up with an idea. Take a look at Lagomonster's post after yours; apparently the Mods could use a bit of support. I think my Star Chamber idea is a good one, at least in theory (obviously or I would not have posted it), and so I presented it precisely so it could be looked over by more people and either saluted, or flaws I had not thought of are exposed. As far as convening quickly, see below.

You mean the one where he AGREES that my solution is a good one? Notice he didn't say anything in that post about wanting a ten man rotating grand jury.

Actually, the idea would be a lot simpler than you may realize. If you have time, you can simply say "I can help oversee anything that comes up, at least until August, when I will be on vacation".

Thanas explains this better than I can, you simply do not realize how much ADDITIONAL work you are asking moderators to do on top of their already busy job.

Or, if it is a body that is always convened, but with rotating seats, then it is even easier; nothing has to be assembled in the midst of a problem; the Mods can just say "we need some help overseeing this thread, the meltdown potential seems high".

You still haven't addressed where you are going to find enough people to do this, but hey hold on to your pet idea some more.

To me, it seems you're treating this like a done deal that I am trying to ram through the board's acceptance. It's not. It's an idea I had to fit what seemed (to me) to be a potential problem. The whole purpose of this thread is to discuss merits or flaws, and contemplate improvements that could make this useful, or, if it is too flawed to be salvaged, then reveal it as such and move on to the next idea.

I don't know if you've noticed this, but I and others have been trying to tell you about the gaping horrible flaws repeatedly and trying to reveal to you how flawed it is.

And Mods can't do everything, all the time, and they, too, get tired, distracted, or sucked into threads or frustrated. As to whether people would care enough to devote the time, those people probably wouldn't do Star Chamber stuff very often, if at all. But the board is full of regular posters, mini-mods, and people who have a lot invested in the board overall, so you might be surprised.

Or I might not be, and you might run into the problem where your 10 man rotating body is a repetition of the same people quite a bit and then we're back to a Senate-esque body that very few people want.

We're coming up on a 10-year anniversary for the board; a lot of these people have been here since "Day One" (or before, for the ASVS folks) or close to it. The truly disinterested have probably already drifted off.

I think you reeeeaaaaaaallllllllly overestimate how important SDNet is, for posters like myself who have been on this board for 8.5 years, I know that level of involvement changes depending on what is going on in life at the moment and many of the posters you refer to have a lot more responsibilities these days than "Help Coyote's pet project".

blhblahblahblah the rest

Or how about if we have even 10-20 people that legitimately are great posters that can hold up board policy the moderator staff work with them individually as volunteers and maybe we get new mods out of the deal or something.

[Coyote]

A forum neighborhood watch would be exactly the same someone REPORTING A POST to the moderator! As in something which is already hard coded into the forum! That is NOT what you suggested. Police take tips from a neighborhood watch; they don't summon it up to help judge people who did something and was already caught.

Hey asshat, I did read what you posted. In fact in one of your very first lines you attempt to say the senate was not the problem, only the size! That does not support you claim that this is not just an attempt to revive the senate with different rules. In fact it is very obvious that you want the senate back in a chopped down form. Your attempts to draw a distinction are meaningless because you are basing it on the insistence that just because a new 'body' doesn't have the exact same rules as the old senate, its not a new senate. That's just pure bullshit. We have mods, we have admins, if they need more help then we can appoint more of them. Trying to add another layer of forum government is just retarded.

You're being silly. It is quite obvious that I am not talking about a cut-down version of the Senate. There would be no special forum, no voting threads, no tenured membership. It would be a handful of people who's purpose in this context would be to help the Mods.

If you think that's "Senate Mk. II" then you have an overly broad view of what I'm talking about here.

I think the only thing I can be accused of in the "New Senate!" accusation is that I completely underestimated how much people would knee-jerk and assume that my mentioning the Senate would bring people into a frothing rage. Let's bear in mind that the Senate was Mike's attempt to back away from daily, hands-on overseeing of the board. It failed miserably because it had the authority to set policy, it was a self-perpetuating membership, it was always in session, and people got bored and went on missions of self-aggrandizement. In other words, it was too damn big. I've explained several times now how I'd work around those problems with a small group, with no real power beyond that of peer-review and alerting Mods when things got out of hand. It would not be permanent.

Really, the only way this compares to "the Senate" is that it's a group of people who are regular posters on the board. So it's like the Senate in much the same way a Volkswagen is like a freight train: they both are used to travel places....and... yeah.

[Coyote]

I appreciate your suggestion and efforts to help out, but the fact is we've got the report button if we need to tell a mod about a shitty poster, and they seem to do their jobs just fine. The people whining about extremes of mod action either aren't paying attention or have a stick up their ass because they can't win an argument without a mod coming in to ban their opponent.

There we go.

With that being said, we do have a thread on reviews of moderator decisions. Which, I note, hasn't been updated since December. Which tells me that either, A) People really aren't that unhappy with moderating decisions (so they're not generating complaints for review through approved channels,) B) People would rather complain in threads like this/snipe at the mods in one-off posts/backseat mod instead of PMing the moderators, or C) the moderators are busy people with lives, so there could well be a backlog.

~~~

Though, while we're tossing out crazy ideas: How about the board just appoint an ombudsman or two? A board member who has access to the moderator forum, but would be given no actual moderating power, or have little moderating power to begin with, (so they'd have no dog in the fight, and this job could be a very busy one possibly suited to a hyperactive insomniac . . . or the sort of job that, say, ablative armor, might face: That is, boring, briefly exciting, and then over.)

It'd be this person who'd own the 'Suggestion Box' and the other instruments of transparency. It'd be their job to sort through all the public's grievances and advocate the most pressing of them to the mods; and explain the reasoning behind moderator decisions. And to stave off the inevitable complaints about how the ombudsman has become wholly corrupted by The Man, the position could even be a rotating one; where a new one is appointed or elected to terms of some pre-determined length.

There, again-- here's some other good ideas and thoughts.

[Darth Fanboy]

There we go.

Oh fuck off. You didn't take criticisms earlier but suddenly now?

There, again-- here's some other good ideas and thoughts.

Again, fuck you. I had a thought too that was well recieved by a moderator whose job was actually going to be affected by your stupid proposal but instead of smiling and saying "thank you" you proceeded to argue for your pet project without making any points.

Skimmer, Thanas, and myself have brought up very relevant cirticisms of your idea you failed to sufficiently answer to but apparently because we didn't pat you on the head and tell you it was a good effort you can't see where people are coming from.

You also responded to Thanas by saying that you admit there is a good argument for not reforming the body repeatedly, and once you remove that then it really does become a stripped down version of the Senate.

You've then gone on record as saying it doesn't have to be formal or recognized. If not then what's the point of naming it and putting a policy in place?

Believe it or not, I'm not trying to "win" something here, I'm trying to discuss ways to help out. I know-- the whole idea that someone here isn't trying to WIN! Is alien, but it does happen.

You are obviously very passionate about this idea and you are debating a point about an idea that you came up with. So yes, in a sense you are trying to "win" but the goal isn't to win for the sake of winning, it's about imporving the board which it really doesn't.

[LadyTevar]

I'll make this short and sweet.

Mike is the only one who can make this decision.
Mike is not here.
Answer is NO.

Any questions? Because my comments other than the above are
No
Hell No
Fuckin' Hell No
We don't need it.

[Coyote]

Oh fuck off. You didn't take criticisms earlier but suddenly now?

Calm down, I didn't "take criticism" when it was "RAR, ZOMBIE SENATE111ONEONE" because it isn't "zombie Senate". I have addressed rational criticisms that didn't fixate on that aspect.

There, again-- here's some other good ideas and thoughts.

Again, fuck you. I had a thought too that was well recieved by a moderator whose job was actually going to be affected by your stupid proposal but instead of smiling and saying "thank you" you proceeded to argue for your pet project without making any points.

Seriously, dude, I'm not going to immediately fold my cards the moment that Darth Fanboy said this was a bad idea. You're not the only one here. I knew not everyone would like it, but then some might. That's also why I made the vote changeable, in case people were persuaded --one way or the other. I knew some people would poke holes in it, but I wasn't going to just completely walk away in defeat the moment I encountered a couple of naysayers. How would anyone get anything done the moment they get a bit of flak? Seriously, I've been around SDN long enough to know that no one ever gets a pat on the head and a smile for effort.

Skimmer, Thanas, and myself have brought up very relevant cirticisms of your idea you failed to sufficiently answer to but apparently because we didn't pat you on the head and tell you it was a good effort you can't see where people are coming from.

Skimmer said this was "Senate II". Thanas brought up the impractical side of drawing up a fresh jury each time something unfolded, which means that (1) I also said a permanent body with rotating chairs might be another alternative and (2)that a jury or chamber or whatever doesn't have to be convened for every thread. In other words, parts of the idea were seen as problematic, and I simply provided counter arguments.

You also responded to Thanas by saying that you admit there is a good argument for not reforming the body repeatedly, and once you remove that then it really does become a stripped down version of the Senate.

Remember, it would not be a permanent body of people --like a Senate. If there was always a Star Chamber, the seats would rotate. No one would stay in there for a period of time (TBD). That was one of the ideas I put forward, to be examined.

You've then gone on record as saying it doesn't have to be formal or recognized. If not then what's the point of naming it and putting a policy in place?

Because I said from the get-go that I liked the name and that was the main rationale? That the idea (originally in history) was that it was a group of magistrates that had the authority to apply the law to nobility, and I found that amusing in this context? And that I said it could be called by whatever name?

Believe it or not, I'm not trying to "win" something here, I'm trying to discuss ways to help out. I know-- the whole idea that someone here isn't trying to WIN! Is alien, but it does happen.

You are obviously very passionate about this idea and you are debating a point about an idea that you came up with. So yes, in a sense you are trying to "win" but the goal isn't to win for the sake of winning, it's about imporving the board which it really doesn't.

I'm probably not as passionate as you think, actually. If I was passionate about it (and the idea of regurgitating the Senate) I'd probably have stuck to a more vehement defense of something more official, formal, and recognized. I really did not realize how viciously embittered people were of the Senate, to the point that simply bringing it up as a juxtaposition was going to lead to such howls of outrage. So, yeah, I stick to my proposal because I think it's a good idea and worth some discussion, and I realized that my initial idea was probably going to be morphed-- and I'm actually fine with that. I thought that folks would find the name silly but be open to the concept of "peer review", which is after all a way of validating scientific papers and I thought would go over well, although there'd probably be some modification of that, too.

I'm not so wed to the idea that it has to be called "The Star Chamber" and that it has to have a set number of people, or whatever. It seems to me that the Mods could use some sort of support, so I suggested something. People didn't like the idea exactly as it was presented, and that (IMO) is because I happened to compare it to the Senate.

But the Senate was supposed to be a way to help Darth Wong so he didn't have to get so deeply involved in every little thing. So, in my vision, the motivation and idea behind the Senate's creation were rational and made sense, but the way it ended up being implemented failed. So I was trying to find a way to do the things the Senate was intended to do, but without the built-in flaws and inherent drama. That was the rationale behind my comparison. Honestly, had I known how much the comparison would have failed my initiative, I would have stayed well away from any such comparisons.

[fgalkin]

Wow, I can't believe this idea still refuses to die.

Coyote, there is nothing in your system that is superior to the system we currently have. The only difference is that it requires more people (meaning it's even slower) and more work with absolutely no benefit to the board. In other words, it's a bad system. The mods have consistently told you this, forum users have told you this I, as a former supermod, have told you this. Why do you persist in pushing for a system that nobody wants?

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Darth Fanboy]

Coyote I'd love to continue to point out your bullshit and let you keep proving how much of a wanker you are but Tevar ended it in a much better way than continuing to listen to you babble. But go ahead and conntinu believing that I have any motivations other than the fact that this is a terrible idea and forming legislative/judicial bodies outside of the official staff is not a path to any kind of progress.

[Thanas]

Even if it were a standing body, then it would not really lessen the workload, as I would still have to check the work these guys or girls do. So the additional work is still there.

[Hillary]

I'll make this short and sweet.

Mike is the only one who can make this decision.
Mike is not here.
Answer is NO.

Any questions? Because my comments other than the above are
No
Hell No
Fuckin' Hell No
We don't need it.

This, basically.

If people were largely unhappy with how the mods were doing their job, I could understand this proposal. I don't feel, however, that this is the case at all. The only posters who appears to have problems with the mods are those who deserve all they get - which supports the fact that they're doing OK imo.

As for scales of punishment, I don't see a need for it. It's not real life, it's a fucking message board. No one gets hurt if another poster flames them. No one dies if an argument isn't backed up with evidence.

People are either worth having as members or they aren't. If a decent poster fucks up, the thread gets HOSed and they are hung out to dry for all to laugh at. If they continue doing so, they get warnings and if they degenerate to the point that they aren't worth having, they get the boot. Simple As.

[Coyote]

Alright, no problem. The only reason I kept explaining was because I didn't want it to get dismissed because it was perceived as "another Senate", which seemed to be the main theme to the objections. I don't mind if it fails, just so long as it fails for the "right" reasons rather than misinterpretation.

[Thanas]

I am not opposed to a new senate or any council, but I am opposed to more work. I hope that distinction has been made clear in my posts. I do not mind listening to reform proposals at all and find it positive that some are thinking about ways to improve this board.

[Coyote]

I am not opposed to a new senate or any council, but I am opposed to more work. I hope that distinction has been made clear in my posts. I do not mind listening to reform proposals at all and find it positive that some are thinking about ways to improve this board.

Actually, this has been useful, for different reasons-- Skimmer reminded me of the "Report Post" button, which I had completely forgotten about ( ).

[Dalton]

Restrictions on the report button are to discourage frivolous use by people who would otherwise report a post at the drop of a hat for flimsy reasons. I do not ever recall disciplining someone for misusing the button.

[Vympel]

I don't see the need for any council, senate, or anything else. I don't see who it'll really help apart from the subset of the forum population who love engaging in tedious forum politics and wars of personality.

[Lagmonster]

Keep in mind the rules state that reporting normal rules violations with that button is essentially back seat moderating.

The mods want less work, but if the regular populace offers help, the rules not only refuse it, but also add to the moderator's workload by possibly punishing the folks who offer it!

The rules list where and when you can use the report post button. If something is an immediate problem, such as something which breaks Canadian law, that's a case for you to use the button. The button notifies all staff immediately, so it's like a send-to-all PM. The idea being that you guarantee a more immediate response to something that might require it. Some things, such as violations of PR1, can wait until a mod is online, so a PM will suffice. I cannot imagine how this could possibly be confusing.

[Coyote]

Restrictions on the report button are to discourage frivolous use by people who would otherwise report a post at the drop of a hat for flimsy reasons. I do not ever recall disciplining someone for misusing the button.

...If people are not to be punished for using the button, the rules shouldn't say they will be punished for it. The only thing it's allowed to be used for in the rules is breaking the most serious laws. Contrary to what comes up in every discussion thread where it's referenced, it is explicitly not to be used as a "neighborhood watch" tool. If this is inaccurate, you have the power to change the rules as written. Doing that would be infinitely more productive than saying one thing and doing another.

I'd say it is to keep someone from pushing the button because they're getting their ass kicked, and they've spotted a minor rules violation in the person kicking their ass, so they call the Mods as a form of artillery support.

The thing about the Report Post button is that it is likely to get used by someone who is involved in the thread, ie, an emotional involvement, so when the button is pushed it may not be for the best reasons, even if its use was "technically" accurate/justified.

The last time I remember it being used was when the 711chan invasion happened, and we were spammed with pictures of autopsies, some kiddie porn, and dead Iraqis with graphic wounds. It was invaluable during that.

[Lagmonster]

But wait, moderator precedent is unavailable since it's all done via (often unanswered or barely answered) PMs and/or a hidden forum, at best! In most cases, failure to enforce the rules has no documentation at all. It's an entirely arbitrary process with reasoning that exists only in one place, the mod's mind.

"Often unanswered" PMs? Really? Tell me about all these messages you've sent about complaints or problems that have gone unanswered, because I'd like to know.

As for the "arbitrary process" bullshit, only one man can issue exceptions to the rules. The rest of us can either agree to enforce them or we can quit. If you see an exception, it was either approved at the top, we haven't caught the problem yet due to time constraints, or someone did something wrong. And if there are loose cannons on staff, we HAVE a process for dealing with that. We even have a moderator review feedback thread where we will post the results of ANY internal inquiry or complaint about moderator behaviour.

If people are not to be punished for using the button, the rules shouldn't say they will be punished for it.

Don't overinflate the issue. It specifically says that the worst punishment you'll get for misuse is a warning, and possibly an informal one at that. It even says we give people the benefit of the doubt if they obviously meant well. Nobody is going to get banned for pressing the report button. If you're in the sweats over it, just send a goddamn PM. Or don't care, and leave it for someone who isn't handicapped by his own lack of judgement.

[Alyeska]

Destructionator XIII, it looks to me like you are calling Lagmonster a liar. Why? What axe do you have to grind here? What secret agenda is happening? The Staff has no nefarious plans to subvert the process of the forum. We try to enforce the rules. Mistakes happen and we try to correct them as things have happened. Its not always transparent, but there is no rule demanding it must be. You've been a member for 7 years now, things haven't really changed all that much.

You are effectively accusing the Staff of outright malice and deciept. For what purpose? Lagmonster is giving you useful advice on how to deal with bad situations, and your response is to question whether we would ban you. What The Fuck Man. Seriously, whats your problem? Do you have something you need to vent? I'd be more than willing to talk with you via PM and listen to what you have to say. If you want transparrency, I guess we could make it a specific public discourse. But seriously, whats up man? There has got to be something driving you to make these paranoid claims against Lagmonster. And they are paranoid (right or wrong). Please take a step back, you might see what we are describing.