"Modgate"

tiffanywint wrote:

II don't think any sections should be hidden, especially not the most provocative sections.

Perhaps there can be a middle ground? Let members apply for access. I'm not too keen on a bunch of lurkers who do next to nothing, except maybe run to admin citing how 'offensive' something is. If someone wants access to a hotspot, they need a spine too and at least some semblance of a posting history, like at least 25 posts. That way, at least you're coming in with something....

I prefer the idea of a minimum number posts (which I've seen on a number of forums) than having to apply to join.

*looks around* I seem to have walked into a bit of a quagmire.

I'm back, more or less regularly. Will even be posting in the Bond threads.

Was given moderator powers ages ago in the TV thread, but I never use them so might as well take away my status.

Laz, feel free to remove my sectional mod status. There are 15 mods in the Bottoms Up Club section and yet it only has one or two active threads. Being of a small government disposition, I'm happy to be part of the cutback. :)

I don't think I've ever used my moderation powers for the TV section. I suppose it's either because nothing dramatic ever happens there or that I'm just not login in often enough.

Regardless, take them away. I'd rather be a full agent than a half mod.

Yeah, I have mod powers that I've never really exercised (I cleaned up/collated PK's 'Food of Fleming's Bond' thread to prepare it to be stickied due to the quality content, but then realised I did not have power to sticky threads). So I don't see why I should have them. I think they were mainly contained to the literary board initially but when I viewed Ambler's profile, for example, I had the option to ban or suspend him!

Many of the forum’s members do not realise how damaging this affair has been.

BAB’s moderators have the right to edit your posts yet few seem to accept the responsibility or need for restraint that comes with that power. More importantly, Lazenby., the new administrator and the man legally accountable for this forum, has not acknowledged that any wrongdoing has occurred. All we have had from him is weasel words that these incidents occurred before he was appointed.

This means you cannot be certain that any post you read is the work of the person to whom it is attributed and that you cannot be sure that any post you make will not be altered. Once that trust is gone there is no way back.

Perhaps if Lazenby. had immediately removed those moderators who had altered J7wild’s posts and taken steps to make sure nothing like that ever happened again, this forum might have been salvageable. Instead, Lazenby. has refused to take any action against those involved, saying that, ‘They’re all great guys as far as I’m concerned’. In doing that, he has shown he is unfit to be the administrator and I cannot continue to post here. (Though some of the moderators may continue to do so in my name.)

One of the reasons I feel so strongly about this idiocy is that it was I who argued to have J7wild banned. I did so on the basis of his postings here. Now I know that the moderators made some of the postings that I objected to. As such, I can only apologise to J7wild. Obviously, the situation is untenable and I must leave the forum as well. Completely ridiculous.

All I can say is that I’m sorry, J7wild. I simply had no idea what was going on here.

Erica Ambler wrote:

One of the reasons I feel so strongly about this idiocy is that it was I who argued to have J7wild banned. I did so on the basis of his postings here. Now I know that the moderators made some of the postings that I objected to.

Now that is throwing the baby out with the bath water. To extrapolate that all of j7's must have been tampered with simply because some of them were, is intellectually dishonest. It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to see that j7's anti-Semitic rants were purely his. A quick Google search will find duplicates of most of his posts here. Are you ready to believe that those 13 or so complaints were about the planted gifs?

This is stretching from reasonable doubt to unreasonable doubt.

I don't care if I have to flood Laz's inbox, create 1000s of duplicate accounts, or threaten to invite David Arnold from Twitter, he will radically change this site from the top down. I owe too much to this small community to let it go to waste.

Trust me, Ambler.

Erica Ambler wrote:

Perhaps if Lazenby. had immediately removed those moderators who had altered J7wild’s posts and taken steps to make sure nothing like that ever happened again, this forum might have been salvageable.

The situation was (and still is) being dealt with. M set up a thread in which discussions were taking place regarding the behaviour of mods, what is acceptable and what isn't, and what punishments should befall people who step out of line around here. It has been long agreed that the unnecessary altering of posts is completely unacceptable, we all agreed on that and were in the process of moving on under that understanding.

If I'd waltzed straight in here and fired Sharky and Brown, all three of you probably wouldn't have been happy about it, so this was lose-lose for me whichever action I took.

And I'll stand by my comments about the mods here (and indeed most of the members here) being great guys. Some of them may be great guys prone to occasional mischief, but at the same time those very same people are also by and large the best and most committed contributors to these forums. If people were condemned at the first sign of mischief, your very own internet existence would be fairly limited, as would that of many of us here.

j7wild was banned for remarks made about jews. One post of his which was later edited in one-off jest by a mod (an act which has since been addressed and in no way condoned) had no bearing on j7's fate.

Some of them may be "great guys prone to mischief", but they're not not suitable for the role of mods, just as I ain't. We're talking about mods who here abused their powers by mocking j7 behind closed doors, sniggering like school kids. A moderator should have a certain level of maturity and restraint, which I why I suggested Loomis, Salomé and Hilly on the other page. Sure, Loomis and Salomé haven't contributed as much to this site in the way of posts and general maintenance as Tux and Python, but their temperaments are a better match for the responsibility that comes with the power of editing posts and banning users.

More than a slap on the wrist is needed.

Sharky, you've stepped down, you've apologised unreservedly and Brown has done pretty much the same. You've both been blasted for it in certain quarters here, and neither M, myself nor anybody else here has condoned the inappropriate behaviour which led to all of this. That's enough mate. We have eight global mods remaining who have done nothing to jeopardise their positions. Let's move on while we still can.

Lazenby. wrote:

That's enough mate.

I agree, I should be moving on. I tried my best to promise Ambler that this would be worth returning to, but without an admin who acknowledges what needs to be changed, BAB is royally f*cked.

So long folks.

Edit: Just noticed Brown's still a mod. What a laugh.

Largo's Shark wrote:

Lazenby. wrote:

That's enough mate.

I agree, I should be moving on. I tried my best to promise Ambler that this would be worth returning to, but without an admin who acknowledges what needs to be changed, BAB is royally f*cked.

Okay, what is it you want exactly, Sharky? People wanted the mods responsible for recent misbehaviour demoted. They've been demoted. Sir Ambler had complaints about The Dungeon, so I nuked the f*cking place top to bottom. Some of the sectional mods are gone as requested, with possibly more to follow, while a return for the much-maligned j7 is far less likely under my watch than it was with M, who let him back in. So what more should I do? If you want harsher punishments for the mod misbehaviour, then I could have imposed suspensions, but to what end? A suspension is a punishment imposed in the hope that a member will realise the consequences of his/her actions, repent, apologise, feel bad about it etc. Yourself and Brown have already filled that criteria, it's not as if you're a pair of j7s who don't seem to have a clue when you've done wrong to the point where a pile of suspensions would do nothing to bring a change in behaviour. You're a pair of usually reliable guys who have done a sh*tload of great work for these forums. You're sorry, you've faced stick for it, it's over and it won't happen again.

So, if anything needs changing for any justifiable reason, then make it clear and I'll try to do it.

Oh, and Ambler wanted a better door policy. Done. So anyone wanting to set up multiple accounts will have to go through me first, which in short means they'll receive a very polite "f*ck off".

Anything else, anyone?

Fucking hell. What did I miss?

Lazenby. wrote:

Okay, what is it you want exactly, Sharky?

1) An entirely new set of moderators (regardless of who or what did anything wrong) - and turnover of mod powers every fortnight or month, to avoid complacency or power going to anyone's head.

2) Three or four moderators max at any one time, with all sectional moderators gone (you've got off to a good start here - keep going). Otherwise too many cooks etc.

3) A set of guidelines for said moderators.

4) Somehow hiding the "American news and politics" threads from public view. I suggested a separate section for controversial debates that might require a minimum number of posts to view (i.e. 25, 50 etc.). This should curtail lurkers from getting their knickers in a bunch, and then bitching to Forumotion or you.

5) Disable the ability to hide one's online status.

I would say that it's it, really. If Ambler wants to come back and offer a few more, he's free to do so, but these are the ones that have stuck in my head.

Hope that's not too much to ask.
.

I think its time to close this thread, get it off public view and get back to business as usual. We've all had our say. Admin is in charge. I do think Laz has dealt with all he needs to deal with. He's got a handle on things. The site is in good hands. Members are free to come and go as they please.

As for public-view/member-view maybe Mrs Aural can PM Admin on the matter and Laz can mull over her input and do what he needs to do. I don't think its a bad idea to maybe require a "rank" before one has access to the whole site. We are using ranks now anyway.

Personally I could care less about complaints from whiny bedwetters, lurking/ trolling the forums. I'd be inclined to draw a line in the sand and say F*** Off, in the nicest way possible of course. Babs is an adult board. But then I have tyrant tendencies and do strongly support those who exercise legitimate authority to squash malcontents. Sensitive types need not land their leaky boats on these shores. :pirat:

Largo's Shark wrote:

Lazenby. wrote:

Okay, what is it you want exactly, Sharky?

1) An entirely new set of moderators (regardless of who or what did anything wrong) - and turnover of mod powers every fortnight or month, to avoid complacency or power going to anyone's head.

2) Three or four moderators max at any one time, with all sectional moderators gone (you've got off to a good start here - keep going). Otherwise too many cooks etc.

3) A set of guidelines for said moderators.

4) Somehow hiding the "American news and politics" threads from public view. I suggested a separate section for controversial debates that might require a minimum number of posts to view (i.e. 25, 50 etc.). This should curtail lurkers from getting their knickers in a bunch, and then bitching to Forumotion or you.

5) Disable the ability to hide one's online status.

1) I mentioned justification, and there clearly isn't much here. I'm not gonna fire people who have contributed a lot to this place, why the f*ck would I? Is there much complacency among mods here? Not really, due to the fact that a) A couple of recent incidents aside, there's often not really much moderation required here, and b) Six of the eight mods here are in the top eight of overall posters here, and practically all six of them didn't reach those heights through mere spamming. Has power gone to the head of any mod here, or is it likely to? Of the eight mods we currently have, I'd answer a definite no.

As the best compromise I can possibly offer here, I'll use this post as a request to any mods who aren't that arsed about being mods to stand down and give some other members a go at it. Failing that, perhaps yourself, Ambler or anyone else who disagrees with the current mod set-up could come up with a criteria or targets for mods to achieve in order to prove their worthiness, the price of failure being demotion/replacement. This isn't necessarily what I want though, I'm just trying to find some way of meeting you halfway on this and avoiding treating people here unfairly.

2) I kind of agree with you on this, but only in that I never felt our mod list needed to go any higher than the original set of three. Not that others didn't richly deserve the honour for their great contributions here, but more because there just isn't enough moderation required here to justify many more than three mods. But the solution to this one leads me to the exact same quandary as my answer to point 1 above.

3) This is currently in progress, the thread for suggestions is still open and, with a bit more input and a whittling down to the essential base requirements, should be ready to go very soon.

4) As you know, I'm pretty much against hidden areas, but I'm not completely opposed to the idea of some kind of VIP area which the average Joe can gain entry to via the worth of their contributions to the forums. For example, someone who has made over 2000 posts could be deemed as a 100% trustworthy member who is here to stay, dedicated to the forums here and worthy of VIP room access, so maybe a VIP area wouldn't be a bad idea, given that everybody can have access to it if they put in the hard work required to gain entry. I've no problem with the ethos of rewarding great posters. This wouldn't be a secret room, it would be more like a B&B Director's Box, the long and the short of it being that if you're willing to put in that little bit extra then you can go in there.

5) I'm all for this, so I'll look into cancelling this option if at all possible.

Lazenby. wrote:

Is there much complacency among mods here?

Apart from Gravity, Khan, Hilly and arguably Tiff, I'd say yes. The evidence is in two massive **** off threads that are now open to the public.

Lazenby. wrote:

A couple of recent incidents aside...

That's exactly what I'm talking about. You're trying to downplay their significance.

How about rephrasing it like this?

Aside from laughing like f*cking school boys at j7wild, humiliating him in private knowing they could get away with it, followed by throwing shit and accusations at an ordinary member who was being imitated by another mod, aside, they're done nothing wrong.

I haven't got anything against the moderators in question. They're both great blokes who I've had plenty of laughs with here. I just found their behavior at the time pretty damn appalling, and suggest that they should either be fired, or step down. Myself, Control, CJB and Wade have. I'm waiting for Tux and Python to follow suit, along with whoever edited "I'm a c***" into j7's Tony Scott post that night.

Lazenby. wrote:

Six of the eight mods here are in the top eight of overall posters here, and practically all six of them didn't reach those heights through mere spamming.

Post counts shouldn't make any difference. As Ambler said, being a mod isn't a reward for long service or effort. It's meant for someone with the degree of responsibility, restraint and maturity of an Anglican priest. I fall short of this, as do Brown, Tux, Makeshift. On the other hand, Gravity is a model mod, and would happily support him staying.

Lazenby. wrote:

Failing that, perhaps yourself, Ambler or anyone else who disagrees with the current mod set-up could come up with a criteria or targets for mods to achieve in order to prove their worthiness, the price of failure being demotion/replacement.

I'd rather have a vote by the users of BAB - a secret ballot. I'd say that's a more democratic option. To avoid accusations of duplicate accounts, voting should be done by PM, with a list of 8 or so nominees sent to your inbox. The 4 most frequently mentioned names become mods. Let the masses decide, rather than just me and Ambler.

That said, I'd agree that asking mods whether or not they want to resign should the first priority.

Thanks for your answers to the other four points.

Look, I hate being a pain in the arse with all this bartering cr*p. I've never properly butted heads with you on anything like this before, but I'm only doing it because I care about BAB, and I want Ambler to return. I'm determined we can reach an agreement here, and we can finally move on.

I don't forget how tedious this shit must be for you too, on a Friday night of all days. Have a decent weekend, and take care mate.

I came to this board to post with people I liked to discuss things with and hopefully chat in an environment with less petty bullshit that existed on MI6.

So much for that idea. Sad, really.

This is far more serious than the kind of petty bullshit James Page, Seb and Luds majored in. All I'm trying do is help Lazenby in cleaning up this mess, not prolonging it.

If you'd rather we take it to PMs, say so. .

Tubes is right. This type of thread is demoralizing I think to the broader membership and doesn't belong in public view. It belongs in a private mod thread, simply because its gone beyond the realm of general suggestions and into the area of publicly evaluating the suitability of members and mods etc.

Again, I fully support the capability of every mod and the present standing of every member on this board, even the ones I butt heads with ;), and I would urge the two mods that have left, to consider returning to the mod-team. But if you want to quit, that is to be respected as well, but IMHO no-one else should feel any need to quit. Anyway its moot. We do have an Admin. The Admin has the power to turf any mod or member that needs turfing or reclassification. There is order in the universe.

Peace. Out.

As I said earlier, I'd prefer to remain a mod but if Lazenby wants my resignation then I'll comply. I'd also like to know who wrote that "I'm a c***" bit on j7wild's post, as I was the one that edited it out.

I don't think Laz wants any mod to resign here, but if you want Ambler to ever return, I'd say it's a must.

Python wrote:

As I said earlier, I'd prefer to remain a mod but if Lazenby wants my resignation then I'll comply. I'd also like to know who wrote that "I'm a c***" bit on j7wild's post, as I was the one that edited it out.

Correct me if wrong here, but doesn't the c word rarely ever get used in Canada and the States? That would narrow it down to one of our British or Australian mods.

^ As un-Canadian as it is, the c-word is used in Canada, I can vouch for that. ;)

Gentlemen, I rarely check out the non-Bond related threads, so learning about some these backstage politics is disappointing, to say the least. I thought BaB was meant to be the adult Bond website. Shouldn't such a place be more or less self-regulating, based on respect and some sense of culture? I don't fully understand how moderation works or how much of a time commitment is required, but my opinion is that a forum of mostly adult Bond connoisseurs shouldn't need as many as 10 mods.

I'd like to speak in favour of keeping Python as a mod, because I am sure no-one else would have made the pics on my recent LAST MOVIE post work. Hardly anyone seems to care in such cases. A mod not only needs to act on his own initiative when posters have problems of any kind, they also need to have the technical proficiency to do so. I doubt that all of the current mods have got these abilities, so I think that Python is one of the most important candidates for a continued service as a mod. :)