I'd be in favor of the primary moderator having PM access.
Moderation Comment Period: PM Access
Posts
Archived
Read-only
Total:
131
-->
@Tejretics
For what reason? No sensible reason has been articulated.
-->
@drafterman
I'm not certain of this, but (1) harassment and malicious CoC violations could occur via PM and moderators need evidence to act to prevent such violations and (2) it would allow moderation to better enforce restraining orders.
-->
@Tejretics
Neither of those are necessary given the block function.
So far the reasons provided for this insane power grab are:
1. A contrived scenario that we have no indication has ever happened or would ever happen and still doesn't warrant PM access
2. Scenarios that are all covered more adequately with the existing block function.
Mods be thirsty for PM drama.
-->
@drafterman
I agree,
PMs are invisible to casual users but aren't ever going to be totally secret or secure. If you want secrecy and security - don't use the PM system on a public debate site as your means of communication!
Bsh1 before suggesting stupid shot like this in the future perhaps ask yourself "is this what Hitler would do" and if the answer is yes than refrain from doing it.
-->
@Wylted
You're assuming he would be disinclined to emulate Hitler.
-->
@drafterman
I was hoping, but clearly not the case. Keep trying to micromanage how people speak and start spying on their personal communications bsh1.
I have crew members at work, and there is clearly a theft issue with them. It crossed my mind that cameras u the bathrooms would stop some of this theft, but I thought to myself, hey Hitler would do that so perhaps I shouldn't. Thank God he doesn't have my job because it would be the opposite response for him
I also considered implanting a device which could track their every movement so I could maybe cut down on some of the slacking off, but you know. Hitler would do that so I opted not to. Thank God Vsh1 doesn't work here.
It amazes me that there are people who think an accusation alone would a warrant a search of someone's PMs.
It reminds me of the quote,
Fascism will not come by jack booted thugs kicking down your door, but by govt functionaries with clipboards telling you this is for your own good. (Paraphrased)
-->
@ethang5
Especially since in the example the person doesn't have proof any doxxing was done.
The issue here is that we're merely talking about a hypo as opposed to something that has actually been happening. And so for that time being, I see no need to give mods that power. When this stuff actually happens, I think that the community (being the size it is right now) can address the issue together and at that point direct how the mods take action.
-->
@Logical-Master
I think that's the most efficient way of settling the conversation right now. But it's ultimately just postponing the inevitable. And there are only a few people willing to really argue against this and they may not be around if and when that scenario happens. Ultimately it may be better to have the longer debate now and put the issue to rest more permanently.
Discussion:
Yes - 1 (Tej)
No - 7 (Drafterman, RM, Outplayz, Mike, Ethang, Wylted, LM)
Just a reminder, despite promising to go with the majority, bsh1 implements secret voting thresholds. This is close to the vote count on the reporting anonymity (5-2) and he arbitrarily decided that not enough total votes had been cast, so 2 dissenting votes was enough to for him to ignore the majority vote. We don't know what that threshold is, and it may be different depending on the issue at hand. Since bsh1 proposed the idea to begin with, it's safe to assume he's a yes, so the discussion may be moot anyway since 2 dissenting votes is all that is required, apparently.
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Exactly!
No proof, just an accusation, and someone has to be unreasonably searched.
Few are noticing that bsh1 requesting this power is as problematic as him having that power.
The real issue here is not privacy, but a mod whose fascist streak has been corrupted by a little power.
-->
@ethang5
Well he lost his delete the vote rights he needs something new.
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
I am not sure what you mean by that--moderators still retain the power to evaluate and remove votes when those founds are found to be insufficient.
I currently have a user sending me unsolicited private messages in which he is trying to force me to change/remove/"talk about" a vote I submitted that he didn't agree with.
Based on this incident, I support the idea of allowing moderators to access private messages upon request to investigate cases of harassment or other possible rule violations.
-->
@Raltar
You can block them.
Just a reminder, this thread will be open for feedback up until sometime (probably the very early morning) on Friday. As it currently stands, it will be the case that moderators will not be allowed, in any circumstance, to examine a user's PMs. Feedback, comments, and questions continue to be welcome.
-->
@bsh1
Is there a secret voting threshold we need to meet for this to take effect as with the report anonymity?
-->
@drafterman
There has never been a threshold on any of these public discussions. Rather, I holistically evaluated the situation to determine if a site-wide consensus likely existed. In the previous thread, I did not feel that there was clear enough agreement from enough members to reach that conclusion; but, as I said, I remain open to revisiting any of the proposals which were not implemented at any time. Regarding this particular discussion, I believe I have already answered your question. As I said: "As it currently stands, it will be the case that moderators will not be allowed, in any circumstance, to examine a user's PMs."
-->
@SamStevens
Lol
-->
@bsh1
There has never been a threshold on any of these public discussions.
Except for report anonymity which you arbitrarily decided that we didn't meet some secret voting threshold ("Not enough people weighed in.")
Rather, I holistically evaluated the situation to determine if a site-wide consensus likely existed.
Yes, by deciding that your secret voting threshold wasn't met for that specific issue.
Regarding this particular discussion, I believe I have already answered your question. As I said: "As it currently stands, it will be the case that moderators will not be allowed, in any circumstance, to examine a user's PMs."
My question is: "Is there a secret voting threshold we need to meet for this to take effect as with the report anonymity?" Which you haven't answered, at least not truthfully because "there has never been a threshold" is a lie.
It's a simple yes or no question that warrants a simple yes or not answer. Either such a threshold exists, or it does not.
Your qualifier of "as it currently stands" exempts you from adhering to anything since you can later decide that some bullshit "hollistic evaluation" has changed things. "Consensus" is a vague and ambiguous term that can mean anything from a simple majority to unanimity and gives you the room to just arbitrarily decide what voting percentage is enough.
So, no, I'm not going to assume that there isn't a voting threshold that you won't later reference to proclaim that a consensus hasn't been met.
-->
@drafterman
Your response, vitriolic as it may be, misconstrues not only what has happened, but also what is happening, with regard to this and previous discussions. Let me repeat my previous statement:
There has never been a threshold on any of these public discussions. Rather, I holistically evaluated the situation to determine if a site-wide consensus likely existed. In the previous thread, I did not feel that there was clear enough agreement from enough members to reach that conclusion; but, as I said, I remain open to revisiting any of the proposals which were not implemented at any time.
Determining, holistically, that a 5-2 vote does not represent site consensus is not the same as imposing some kind of turnout threshold. Had the vote been 7-0, I would have likely implemented the proposal. That the vote was small and split created reasonable doubt for me that the 5 votes on the one side represented a site-wide consensus. Moreover, I have explicitly remarked, both in this thread and others, that I am open to revisiting and reversing that decision should a clear consensus be reached on that, or any other, unimplemented proposal. The judgement I made was holistic, and was never based on any kind of minimum turnout threshold. A holistic judgement is not inherently an arbitrary one, and if you feel that it was arbitrary, than perhaps it would be more productive to identify additional voices who can add to that 5-2 tally. This is also an issue I can re-raise in my next public commentary thread.
Your qualifier of "as it currently stands" exempts you from adhering to anything since you can later decide that some bullshit "hollistic evaluation" has changed things.
You're question here is disingenuous, as I have already told you that there is a presumption, in my eyes, against implementing the policy. I told you that on post 38. The logical corollary to such a presumption would by that a clear majority of the site would need to be in favor of implementing the policy in order for it to be implemented. The "as it currently stands" qualifier acknowledges that voices which may yet contribute to this thread may be out there, but that qualifier in no way obfuscates the underlying point, which I was fairly clear on from early on: a clear majority of users would need to be in favor of the policy in order to implement it. A clear majority is more than 8-7, and certainly more than the 2-7 the vote count currently reflects.
-->
@bsh1
Determining, holistically, that a 5-2 vote does not represent site consensus is not the same as imposing some kind of turnout threshold.
No, but saying "Not enough people weighed in" is.
Had the vote been 7-0, I would have likely implemented the proposal.
Saying that there weren't enough votes for one side is not significantly different than simply saying there weren't enough votes. So you don't have an overall vote threshold, you just have a threshold for at least one side to reach. The fundamental aspect is still the same: some number of votes must be cast in some capacity for you to acknowledge it.
That the vote was small and split created reasonable doubt for me that the 5 votes on the one side represented a site-wide consensus.
Irrelevant. You posted a public thread. The people interested in the subject voted. Honor the result. You don't get to invalidate it simply because you don't like how many people weighed in. Well, obviously you do "get" to do that, but it's a thoroughly shitty thing to do.
Moreover, I have explicitly remarked, both in this thread and others, that I am open to revisiting and reversing that decision should a clear consensus be reached on that, or any other, unimplemented proposal.
And yet you aren't. There hasn't been a whiff from you about the issue since then. It took me asking you about it, directly, four times before you even acknowledged the issue. And even then you didn't "revisit" it, you just asspulled justifications for why you ignored it in the first place. It wasn't until Mike got involved that wheels actually started turning.
The judgement I made was holistic, and was never based on any kind of minimum turnout threshold.
Then what does "Not enough people weighed in" mean?
A holistic judgement is not inherently an arbitrary one, and if you feel that it was arbitrary, than perhaps it would be more productive to identify additional voices who can add to that 5-2 tally.
Well, you'd first have to tell me what the secret threshold to reach is. But you won't even acknowledge it exists, so fat chance of that happening.
-->
@drafterman
You can block them.
I did.
But this guy seems to have a real grudge against me for reasons unknown. In addition to private messages, he argues with me in comments and I frankly doubt that blocking him will have much meaningful impact over the long haul.
I also suggested a more robust blocking feature in another thread and was shot down on that idea...
-->
@drafterman
Since you failed to address the latter half of my comment, I take it that your question about how this thread will proceed has been resolved. Granted, post 38 should have cleared the issue up for you earlier, but I am glad that there are no more concerns about this thread. Either than or you deliberately ignored the part of my reply which directly answered your concerns about the process. To repeat:
You're question here is disingenuous, as I have already told you that there is a presumption, in my eyes, against implementing the policy. I told you that on post 38. The logical corollary to such a presumption would by that a clear majority of the site would need to be in favor of implementing the policy in order for it to be implemented. The "as it currently stands" qualifier acknowledges that voices which may yet contribute to this thread may be out there, but that qualifier in no way obfuscates the underlying point, which I was fairly clear on from early on: a clear majority of users would need to be in favor of the policy in order to implement it. A clear majority is more than 8-7, and certainly more than the 2-7 the vote count currently reflects.
I am not going to continuously re-hash with you what has, in many ways, already been beaten to death. If you don't like the explanation for why I made the decision I did previously--that not enough people weighed in in favor of reinstating anonymity--so be it. Continuing on in this fashion will neither further elucidate the issue nor persuade me that my approach was somehow invalid. Moreover, I was fairly clear, from the moment the voting in the previous public thread closed consistently up until now, that I am willing to revisit the issue of anonymous reporting. If you want to encourage change on this issue, than the most constructive course of action, rather than griping and issuing personal attacks, would be to identify other voices who share your views on the subject.