Untouchable and unaccountable - Admin disputes

[PSP (Dizzy) 201]

Am I right in the assumption that the dispute system exists only to question moderator decisions, and not admins? If so, doesn't that strike you as a little... disturbing? That those with the most power over the site are considered to be infallible? That they supposedly cannot be wrong, and are not to be questioned by the userbase?

 

No one is entirely right all of the time, and it is beyond problematic for the system to be run in this way. A dispute is not resolved until the individuals in said dispute reach the most logical, honest, and fair conclusion. Ending a dispute simply because an admin or admins reach a conclusion is not the same as a dispute actually being "resolved". Following a basic logical process is not difficult or time-consuming, either.

[Jeric 46,867]

@PSP (Dizzy), 

 

I made a slight change to the topic title so that the purpose of the thread is easier to recognize for other members of the community. Thanks. 

[Lightwing 12,978]

How did you reached the conclusion about Admin disputes being untouchable?

Admin disputes have the same level of importancy of disputes with Moderators or Sectional Staff.

 

Even if Administrators are the "leaders" of the moderators on this context ,the only real difference between them both are the higher permissions given to them:

  Quote

They act as leaders of the moderation staff; assisting them in moderation and overseeing them in general, calming angry members and dealing with moderation disputes, diagnosing troublesome user account issues, investigating duplicate accounts, fixing permissions screw ups, watching over trouble tickets and acting as managers for community projects that do not require in-depth technical involvement.

I'm not a Moderator or an Admin or nothing like that,but the decissions that an Admin takes aren't untouchable. They still need to know the rest of the staff's opinions,and reach a mutual agreement before their decissions are done,just like with the rest of the staff.

 

If you want a better answer from an Administrator's words,be sure to contact either of them:

@Artemis

[Idris 241]

Tweeking the noses of admin is a risky thing on any forum. I personally wouldn't want to be shepherding an outfit like MLP for fear of going off my oats! I bet it's a hell of a task to keep it running.

I've not been on a forum which was a dictatorship, but there has to be some solid 'this is how it is' cut off? It wouldn't work if admin couldn't be flexible to new situations. If anyone is upset then that is unfortunate, but It has to be inevitable in any management system? Keeping the pages content running smoothly and keeping everyone happy has to be at odds with itself all the time.

[Dulset Tarn 441]

  On 2015-03-15 at 12:42 PM, Idris said:

Tweeking the noses of admin is a risky thing on any forum. I personally wouldn't want to be shepherding an outfit like MLP for fear of going off my oats! I bet it's a hell of a task to keep it running.

I've not been on a forum which was a dictatorship, but there has to be some solid 'this is how it is' cut off? It wouldn't work if admin couldn't be flexible to new situations. If anyone is upset then that is unfortunate, but It has to be inevitable in any management system? Keeping the pages content running smoothly and keeping everyone happy has to be at odds with itself all the time.

So what if, for example, one or more admins were behaving unethically?

[PSP (Dizzy) 201]

  On 2015-03-15 at 12:42 PM, Idris said:

Tweeking the noses of admin is a risky thing on any forum. I personally wouldn't want to be shepherding an outfit like MLP for fear of going off my oats! I bet it's a hell of a task to keep it running.

I've not been on a forum which was a dictatorship, but there has to be some solid 'this is how it is' cut off? It wouldn't work if admin couldn't be flexible to new situations. If anyone is upset then that is unfortunate, but It has to be inevitable in any management system? Keeping the pages content running smoothly and keeping everyone happy has to be at odds with itself all the time.

 

  On 2015-03-13 at 8:04 PM, Lightwing said:

How did you reached the conclusion about Admin disputes being untouchable?

Admin disputes have the same level of importancy of disputes with Moderators or Sectional Staff.

 

Even if Administrators are the "leaders" of the moderators on this context ,the only real difference between them both are the higher permissions given to them:

I'm not a Moderator or an Admin or nothing like that,but the decissions that an Admin takes aren't untouchable. They still need to know the rest of the staff's opinions,and reach a mutual agreement before their decissions are done,just like with the rest of the staff.

 

If you want a better answer from an Administrator's words,be sure to contact either of them:

@Artemis

 

The admins do have the final say, and they can choose to ignore and cancel any disputes if they desire. The idea is, if the admins refuse to follow basic logical process, they are still incorrect, even if they listen to the other staff.

[Idris 241]

It is a very good point Dulset Tarn, and everyone is relying on admin to self monitor each other. But without doing it in a general back stabbing way. So having several admin is a way that unethical behaviour can be eliminated, unless they are all bad? Once that sort of thing happens you quickly see a migration of users to another site. When you drill down into a site you find that it really is supported by the users. It's a kind of democracy where you vote with your feet.

[Sir Hugsalot 9,353]

  On 2015-03-13 at 4:29 PM, PSP (Dizzy) said:

Am I right in the assumption that the dispute system exists only to question moderator decisions, and not admins? If so, doesn't that strike you as a little... disturbing? That those with the most power over the site are considered to be infallible? That they supposedly cannot be wrong, and are not to be questioned by the userbase?

 

No one is entirely right all of the time, and it is beyond problematic for the system to be run in this way. A dispute is not resolved until the individuals in said dispute reach the most logical, honest, and fair conclusion. Ending a dispute simply because an admin or admins reach a conclusion is not the same as a dispute actually being "resolved". Following a basic logical process is not difficult or time-consuming, either.

I told it many times, but few months ago admin banned my friend for picture he considered "NSFW" (it wasn't NSFW at all). I approached the admin about my doubt and ban was cancelled. 

 

So yes, You can question decisions of admins. Even more, You can actually make them change their mind

 

 

And marking disputes as resolved? It was answered in other thread.

http://mlpforums.com/topic/123567-support-tickets/

[PSP (Dizzy) 201]

It does not matter if the ticket is marked as "closed" if the dispute was not actually resolved. Deciding a dispute is resolved without it actually reaching a logical resolution is not ethical, especially when dealing with removing someone from the forums.

 

The problem is that all bans from the site are handled in private. There is no accountability, and the staff have absolutely zero obligation to respond to the users, unless they see it appropriate.

 

"Moderation dispute tickets are the only appropriate location to discuss warnings that have been received - forum threads, status updates, blog posts, and all similar venues are not acceptable places to dispute, complain about, or otherwise discuss warnings - doing so in such places will result in warning points being applied to your account, at an amount to be determined by the administration."

 

They are completely unaccountable for their actions. They take matters involving bans off-site and refuse to allow discussion of them on-site. Transparency and accountability is apparently a negative, by them, which is a recipe for disaster in any form of governing body.

 

An individual can be banned, refused a proper hearing by any of the staff, and then be un-allowed to make his case where other, more reasonable people, might see it.

[Sir Hugsalot 9,353]

  On 2015-03-31 at 10:29 PM, PSP (Dizzy) said:

It does not matter if the ticket is marked as "closed" if the dispute was not actually resolved. Deciding a dispute is resolved without it actually reaching a logical resolution is not ethical, especially when dealing with removing someone from the forums.

 

The problem is that all bans from the site are handled in private. There is no accountability, and the staff have absolutely zero obligation to respond to the users, unless they see it appropriate.

 

"Moderation dispute tickets are the only appropriate location to discuss warnings that have been received - forum threads, status updates, blog posts, and all similar venues are not acceptable places to dispute, complain about, or otherwise discuss warnings - doing so in such places will result in warning points being applied to your account, at an amount to be determined by the administration."

 

They are completely unaccountable for their actions. They take matters involving bans off-site and refuse to allow discussion of them on-site. Transparency and accountability is apparently a negative, by them, which is a recipe for disaster in any form of governing body.

 

An individual can be banned, refused a proper hearing by any of the staff, and then be un-allowed to make his case where other, more reasonable people, might see it.

Resolving ticket does not always mean doing what You ask them too, also what You ask them too is not always right, because You're not the person who has all the informations regarding bans etc. 

 

Of course they are handled private. If I was banned last thing I'd want to see is administration telling everyone what have I done. Simple as that. Of course they have zero obligation. But if asked nicely and in private they are a lot more reasonable than You claim them to be and I know that by experience.

 

And the last sentence is nothing short, but silly as I already saw banned cancelled after moderation was proven wrong in PRIVATE. 

 

 

 

You obviously did not even bother Yourself with reading some of replies no offence.

[PSP (Dizzy) 201]

No, I read everything, you just restated them and did not really answer any of my concerns.

 

1. I was not saying that the tickets should remain open until the admins do whatever the user asks, I was saying that they should remain open until the issue reaches its logical resolution.

 

2. They should only remain private if the supposed wrongdoer wishes them to remain private. Having a proper hearing where people can actually see what is taking place should be allowed if the supposed wrongdoer wishes it. Otherwise it just means that they have to shut up about the issue, even if it were resolved incorrectly.

 

3. Your personal experience is not really relevant to this particular issue. The moderation could easily be proven wrong about a certain issue, but then deny they are wrong about another through ignorance. This is why accountability and transparency is important, so they can be held responsible for all of their decisions.

Also, I would really appreciate a response from a mod or admin about this. Because I feel that these concerns pertain directly to the staff. And their lack of obligation to respond is becoming very apparent.

[Jeric 46,867]

 

 

  On 2015-04-01 at 7:12 PM, PSP (Dizzy) said:

Also, I would really appreciate a response from a mod or admin about this. Because I feel that these concerns pertain directly to the staff. And their lack of obligation to respond is becoming very apparent.

 

I believe we have recently and officially addressed this and the answer has not changed.

 

1. As with any dispute to a private enterprise, there will be times that the disputing party will not be satisfied. Disputes do not and should not continue if the banned or warned party disagrees with the Administrations final verdict. This is a final stop unfortunately, sometimes unsatisfactorily to both parties. All decisions are communicated along with a reason why. 

 

2. Administration does not discuss disputes with the community. However, if the party disputing a warning or a ban makes the issue public then said party does waive their right to that privacy. This is done as silence of the caretakers while the caretakers of the community are attacked is more damaging. An explanation to the community would be in order to ensure there is an understanding. At that point the good of the many outweighs the good of the few or the one. Moderation may also need to be informed of a dispute resolution if overturned due to incorrect interpretation of the rules. 

 

 

 

  On 2015-04-01 at 7:12 PM, PSP (Dizzy) said:

The moderation could easily be proven wrong about a certain issue, but then deny they are wrong about another through ignorance.

 

Moderators are held accountable through and by the Administration level. The issue of contention is that there appears to be an assumption that there is a higher power beyond the Administrators specific to disputes on warnings and bans. That is not the case. The buck has to stop somewhere. If a Mod abuses their power, they are gone. Simple as that. 

 

Those answers have not changed in a long time.  I am not infallible. I make mistakes. I'll leave this open in case anyone wishes to add anything to this response. 

[PSP (Dizzy) 201]

  On 2015-04-02 at 12:49 AM, Jeric said:

I believe we have recently and officially addressed this and the answer has not changed.

 

1. As with any dispute to a private enterprise, there will be times that the disputing party will not be satisfied. Disputes do not and should not continue if the banned or warned party disagrees with the Administrations final verdict. This is a final stop unfortunately, sometimes unsatisfactorily to both parties. All decisions are communicated along with a reason why. 

 

2. Administration does not discuss disputes with the community. However, if the party disputing a warning or a ban makes the issue public then said party does waive their right to that privacy. This is done as silence of the caretakers while the caretakers of the community are attacked is more damaging. An explanation to the community would be in order to ensure there is an understanding. At that point the good of the many outweighs the good of the few or the one. Moderation may also need to be informed of a dispute resolution if overturned due to incorrect interpretation of the rules. 

 

 

 

 

Moderators are held accountable through and by the Administration level. The issue of contention is that there appears to be an assumption that there is a higher power beyond the Administrators specific to disputes on warnings and bans. That is not the case. The buck has to stop somewhere. If a Mod abuses their power, they are gone. Simple as that. 

 

Those answers have not changed in a long time.  I am not infallible. I make mistakes. I'll leave this open in case anyone wishes to add anything to this response. 

 

It is not that I assume there is a "higher power", but rather that the admins could be wrong. It seems that we are unwilling to even humor the idea that they could be, which is frightening. How are the admins not to be held accountable for their own potential mistakes?

 

The caretakers of the community would not be in danger of being "attacked" by making their decisions publicly visible, and it is their duty as the body of power presiding over this site to do so. And of course the user would "waive their right to privacy" by taking their dispute public, as that is the point: that the issue would be seen by many, and not diffused in private, where they could easily be silenced or refused proper hearing.

 

Also, why is the rule that states discussion of bans is against the rules in the FAQ and not in the rules section? Why hide it away like that, especially if there is going to be a penalty for it?

[simba86 1,541]

  On 2015-03-17 at 7:20 AM, Idris said:

It is a very good point Dulset Tarn, and everyone is relying on admin to self monitor each other. But without doing it in a general back stabbing way. So having several admin is a way that unethical behaviour can be eliminated, unless they are all bad? Once that sort of thing happens you quickly see a migration of users to another site. When you drill down into a site you find that it really is supported by the users. It's a kind of democracy where you vote with your feet.

exactly, I have left many forums/groups that had bad admins, admins that you just can't get along with and that just love to push you around over nothing at all, at the end of the day the admins/owner have the final say in everything and if you don't like it then vote with your feet and go to another forum, I have seen many forums/groups go from active to totally dead because they had admins and mods that was always on everyones back over every little thing so much so that people got afraid to even post and everyone left and left the admins to be kings of nothing

[PSP (Dizzy) 201]

  On 2015-04-06 at 7:18 PM, simba86 said:

exactly, I have left many forums/groups that had bad admins, admins that you just can't get along with and that just love to push you around over nothing at all, at the end of the day the admins/owner have the final say in everything and if you don't like it then vote with your feet and go to another forum, I have seen many forums/groups go from active to totally dead because they had admins and mods that was always on everyones back over every little thing so much so that people got afraid to even post and everyone left and left the admins to be kings of nothing

 

That solution seems entirely counter-productive. If the admins are doing something wrong, attention needs drawn to it, and i needs to be fixed. Why abandon someplace instead of working to make others see that the community in which they take shelter is founded on faulty ethics?

At the very least, people need to know these rules are unfair and unethical.

Edited April 6, 2015 by PSP (Dizzy)

[simba86 1,541]

  On 2015-04-06 at 9:15 PM, PSP (Dizzy) said:

That solution seems entirely counter-productive. If the admins are doing something wrong, attention needs drawn to it, and i needs to be fixed. Why abandon someplace instead of working to make others see that the community in which they take shelter is founded on faulty ethics?

 

At the very least, people need to know these rules are unfair and unethical.

Yeah but if the admins are doing something wrong and won't listen to reason then what do you propose? Someone has to be the final decision maker, you can't have more and more people over people and keep pushing the issue higher and higher into infinity, and anyway, the owner/head admin owns the forum so he has the right to do what ever he wants whether people agree or not, and if you don't think the decision is fair then to bad, forums are not always fair and things don't always go the way you want. If they are doing something wrong it does not matter because you won't be able to change it so vote with your feet, if everyone votes with their feet and leaves then the forum dies and a new and better one pops up somewhere else.

[Jeric 46,867]

  On 2015-04-06 at 5:40 PM, PSP (Dizzy) said:

 

It is not that I assume there is a "higher power", but rather that the admins could be wrong. It seems that we are unwilling to even humor the idea that they could be, which is frightening. How are the admins not to be held accountable for their own potential mistakes?

 

The caretakers of the community would not be in danger of being "attacked" by making their decisions publicly visible, and it is their duty as the body of power presiding over this site to do so. And of course the user would "waive their right to privacy" by taking their dispute public, as that is the point: that the issue would be seen by many, and not diffused in private, where they could easily be silenced or refused proper hearing.

 

Also, why is the rule that states discussion of bans is against the rules in the FAQ and not in the rules section? Why hide it away like that, especially if there is going to be a penalty for it?

Admins overturn their own decisions as well on further review, but their say is final. The FAQ serves as additional granular information, not hidden. We hope everyone reads them.

 

Irrespective of how disputes are managed counter to your own preferences, we hope you continue to be a part of this community.

[PSP (Dizzy) 201]

  On 2015-04-08 at 3:07 PM, Jeric said:

Admins overturn their own decisions as well on further review, but their say is final. The FAQ serves as additional granular information, not hidden. We hope everyone reads them.

 

Irrespective of how disputes are managed counter to your own preferences, we hope you continue to be a part of this community.

 

It seems like you're directly avoiding just admitting they have been wrong. Is there a way I could speak to an admin in this thread publicly?

 

Also that doesn't really answer my question at all. It's a rule, why is it not in the rule section?

[Yellow Diamond 7,575]

  On 2015-03-13 at 4:29 PM, PSP (Dizzy) said:

Am I right in the assumption that the dispute system exists only to question moderator decisions, and not admins? If so, doesn't that strike you as a little... disturbing? That those with the most power over the site are considered to be infallible? That they supposedly cannot be wrong, and are not to be questioned by the userbase?

There is no person "above" the admins to whom an appeal can be made, save for Feld0 himself. Although he has explicitly removed himself from community administration, you can send him a PM. He retains full discretion regarding how to proceed, though.

 

The difficulty of having admins placed above admins, so to speak, is that of infinite regression and the classic quis custodiet ipsos custode dilemma. The overseer would require an overseer, ad infinitum, until it became functionally untenable. Therefore, if an admin is believed to have acted in error, another admin should be contacted. If need be, it's simple enough to ask, "May I talk to someone else about this?"

 

And yes, we've overturned each other. That's a thing.

 

Finally, I'm sorry none of us spotted this topic earlier.