So, I've just spent the last hour watching WBC videos on YouTube, interspersed (for my own sanity?) with my reading of Lovecraft's stories of Cthulhu, and now that my mind's numb enough I'm ready to have another shot:
In reply to:
K: Funny, I did not notice there was a thread related to the hacking in the mods forum. Nor did I know Billy's IP had been banned, until after the banning had taken place.
In that case, where did the caring, compassionate Ohro go? It seems desperately out of character for her to ban Billy without first sending him a sympathetic PM, encouraging him to mend his ways? I took the original comment to mean, perhaps wrongly, that Adam and Ohro had consulted one another; however, I'll take your word for it, for the moment.
Alas:
In reply to:
Actually, all mods have the ability to ban users. We have just made a point of not doing so unless we all agree.
So if no threads or PMs were made between mods, Ohro went against 'official procedures' twice; once in banning Billy at her own discretion, and again in writing privately to Dogz saying that he would not be banned.
May I suggest that all such decisions in future follow the procedure outlined by K, quoted above, i.e. the mods are all in alignment privately before a verdict is decided upon?
K, you complained in your post that the Mods are criticised no matter what decisions they make, and this is to some extent true. What I find disturbing, however, is not the judgements themselves (which, if I may say so, are nevertheless toss), but the lack of consistency.
If the mods had all agreed on their private 'Should we ban Dogz now?' thread that Dogz should not have been banned, despite going over his 5-a-day limit, I would've been less critical than I am at seeing one mod acting on hir own initiative. I broached the same problem on Adam's guidelines about posting one's genitals; at the end of the thread, Adam, EJ and Ohro were all shown to be in complete disagreement, making the guidelines a farce.
In reply to:
K: Actually, since we're dealing in quotes, here's what Ohro wrote in the mods forum:
"i just went ahead & banned the IP right away because to me, this is a pretty serious offense. not that the banning would prevent the alleged thief from trying again, only from posting. right?"
Er, so there was a thread in the mod forum after all?
I sense a pattern emerging here:
1) Ohro screwed up her mod duties and tried to cover up by getting K to provide an alibi; however
2) K screwed up and lied also.
Psst! The sweepstakes say EJ's next! 
In reply to:
Ohro: Actually, you commented after I had already posted the ban limit. And besides, wasn't this comment in reference to my *need* to confer with other mods before I act?
As I read it, the ban limit was only imposed in your following post; I was replying to the suggestion of whether five was a suitable figure, to which I raised my objection that Dogz can't count to five. My second point -- that the lower the limit the better -- was in agreement.
In reply to:
Ohro: Thank you dude, for admitting you understood this was tongue-in-cheek. You scared me for a minute there.
Yes, it was mostly tongue-in-cheek, though the joke only works if you were semi-seriously implying that K should not have given out a custom title on a whim. Which, given the subsequent fiasco over Strawman's title, suggests that you do indeed consider these titles to be weighty things.
The broader point, however, is that even if a single mod did err, as you put it, NONE of the decisions discussed in thread are IRREVERSIBLE.
Naturally, I had plenty more to say, some of it facetious, about how custom titles are handed out, about how they're the TW equivalent of being knighted and those who wear them proudly below their handles are the perpetrators of HolyCowism -- especially those 'premature' owners -- though I'm reluctant to post yet again in site feedback. I'll leave you with a final thought, however: While I agree that *all* the early adopters of customer titles have deserved them, have any of them received them without blatantly ass-kissing the admin &c. ? 
[neon]I'm not trolling; I'm moderating. [/neon]
|
