Is moderator misbehavior at all sanctionable?

...or are we stuck with y'all?

Seriously -- "this is not a democracy" LOCK THREAD is all very clear, but is this the way things are to be forever amen? If the group can SB, why can't the group suggest suspension of mod privileges?

its not misbehavior when moderators do it

If you people want to yell at each other, do it in email.

― the freakish wonder of nature that is "Beat Me" (HI DERE), Tuesday, 28 April 2009 13:32 (7 hours ago)

^^^ bit confused about this advice, wasn't that what dom got permabanned for?

who exactly are you asking have their moderator privileges suspended, and why?

isnt "i must protest" specifically for yelling

if a moderator moderates in the woods

Wait do these woods have wi-fi? Also where do I charge my Evil Nazi Smiting Stick?

the woods have wi-fi but there's nowhere to charge your stick.

so to speak

"who exactly are you asking have their moderator privileges suspended, and why?"

No-one. I am asking if there is a system in place where complaints about moderator behavior could be publicly and seriously discussed, and if there can be a parallel system to "suggest ban" in place for moderators.

I would have been sorely tempted, for example, to hit a "suggest suspend mod privileges" button on the mods involved in Dom poll bullshit, but I have been thinking about this for a while.

I would have been sorely tempted, for example, to hit a "suggest suspend mod privileges" button on the mods involved in Dom poll bullshit, but I have been thinking about this for a while.

if you hit the suggest ban button next to your name while thinking "i want to ban this certain mod, whom i do not like, and who is offending my internet time, forever," then what happens is, that mod gets a suggest ban. FYI.

...from which the mod, as the mods have repeatedly stated, are more-or-less immune. FYI.

bit confused about this advice, wasn't that what dom got permabanned for?

Dom got permabanned for actively and aggressively attempting to bully, intimidate, annoy, aggravate and drive away other posters via his actions on the board; the email he sent me came after he was banned and confirmed to me that the correct decision had been made.

People can scream at each other in email all they want; I don't care. When that spills over into the type of snipefest that was occurring on that poll thread, my stance will always be "take it to email".

For the record, the "mods involved in Dom poll bullshit" were exactly one, and it was me. If the posting community feels this was an egregious abuse of moderator power that renders me untrustworthy, I'll step down from being a moderator.

It was funny would vote again and again

And I'm also not talking about sb'ing mods, but an ability to suspend mod privileges. FYI.

x-post: I am asking whether it is makes sense for the posting community to be able to suggest a suspension of moderator privileges, not for Dan to step down forever.

...from which the mod, as the mods have repeatedly stated, are more-or-less immune. FYI.

yes, the mods have been immunized against the suggest bans, but there is a newer, stronger strain of suggest bans on the rise, coming from Mexico. . . beware

not that anyone listens to me since i got disbarred but three word username isnt really asking for anything bizarre

actually altho I am dead against SB on principle, a system whereby HOOS' SB choices count for 20 would be quite interesting imo

If the posting community feels this was an egregious abuse of moderator power that renders me untrustworthy, I'll step down from being a moderator.

― the freakish wonder of nature that is "Beat Me" (HI DERE), Tuesday, April 28, 2009 10:53 PM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

almost changed my username to make this point, but yeah, do this. 154 people voted dom be allowed back.

unlock unlock dom p petition

There's no feature for it coded into the system, largely because as I understand it, the moderator who takes a particular action is not recorded in the database, so there is no effective technical way to link votes against a particular moderator to actions that have occurred which bother you.

There is an email address to contact the head moderators that I can't remember off the top of my head because I have never accessed the account; I wanna say it's ilxmoderators at gmail. Right now, this is the most effective way to register a complaint. There is also this forum.

xp: The Dom poll was meaningless from the beginning and you know it, Enrique.

http://www.willisms.com/archives/ivotedsticker.gif

I wanna say it's ilxmoderators at gmail. Right now, this is the most effective way to register a complaint. There is also this forum.

x-p

I would think that the mod suggest ban has always been a polite and reasonable e-mail to one or more of the other mods. Then they can sort it out themselves.

It's not public. There's no visible accountability. But if one had a serious beef with a mod that seemed outright unfair, that seems like the effective way to go.

Of course, it's hard to tell who's modding the site these days and who isn't. That's why I just write my complaints down on a sheet of paper and send them to a PO Box I found in Canada.

Except as you well know, Dan, threads on this board get called "shitstorm" and locked down whenever the mods have had enough. Again, I'm not calling for anyone's head here, but I do think the ability for the posting community to suggest a suspension of mod privileges based on what does appear in the threads, not based on logged actions -- the log as designed only really raises my blood pressure and makes me want to sb the motherlovin' lot of you, but that's another thread (which would get locked).

There is an email address to contact the head moderators that I can't remember off the top of my head because I have never accessed the account; I wanna say it's ilxmoderators at gmail. Right now, this is the most effective way to register a complaint.

ha ha

If the posting community feels this was an egregious abuse of moderator power that renders me untrustworthy, I'll step down from being a moderator.

― the freakish wonder of nature that is "Beat Me" (HI DERE), Tuesday, April 28, 2009 10:53 PM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

almost changed my username to make this point, but yeah, do this. 154 people voted dom be allowed back.

― FREE DOM AND ETHAN (special guest stars mark bronson), Tuesday, April 28, 2009 8:59 PM (8 minutes ago)

thank you for continuing to bring the lols

omit finally period, insert " -- would be good."

x-post

i think dan should step down but not because of the dom poll - that was funny

mods can u retitle thread WHO WATCHES THE WATCHMEN?!?!?!

If Suggest Remove Priveleges is ever implemented, I'd like to be the one to volunteer to start the thread where all the other mods (committed partisans pretending to be impartial, naturally) get passive-aggressive, tetchy, outright abusive and then try to get the original mod off on technicalities and loopholes. I'll then repeat the thread every week and see how long it takes everyone else to get exasperated by the whole thing.

and that is how you board lawyer folks

I'd like to be the one to volunteer to start the thread where all the other mods (committed partisans pretending to be impartial, naturally) get passive-aggressive, tetchy, outright abusive

hmm WHAT WOULD THAT BE LIKE, eh readers?

i for one would never be exasperated at mods doing that

i think we should all walk two moons in another mans shoes

i kind of want to read that thread, it sounds like a good one

lol n/a, the point to that was that other people monitor and respond to that account, not me.

Except as you well know, Dan, threads on this board get called "shitstorm" and locked down whenever the mods have had enough.

This one hasn't.

yay! a thread didnt get locked!

no thanks to you

The reason I, as a mod, ignore you is precisely because of your behavior on these threads. If you'd like to be taken seriously, try acting like you have a serious point and aren't just desperate for attention.

yay!

i dunno not to be "serious" abt internet joeks but i tried to be real and have a genuine conversation w/ mods about the og gershy banning and i essentially got laughed @ & told to fuck off so if my concerns arent going to be heard even when im making my points in a calm & rational manner why should bother being anything but a dick? im sure 3-wd username will learn this pretty soon if it hasnt already learned it from this thread

oops sorry was i being a "board lawyer"?????

I have been here longer than you, max. I just have been disappearing gradually over the course of 4 usernames.

just noticed that 'dom' is 'mod' backwards

http://www.math.yorku.ca/infinity/Images/newInfinity.jpg

marmot? xp

i dunno not to be "serious" abt internet joeks but i tried to be real and have a genuine conversation w/ mods about the og gershy banning and i essentially got laughed @ & told to fuck off so if my concerns arent going to be heard even when im making my points in a calm & rational manner why should bother being anything but a dick? im sure 3-wd username will learn this pretty soon if it hasnt already learned it from this thread

Your concerns were heard. The moderators disagreed. You didn't like that so you decided to become an annoying pest whenever you have moderation concerns. As a result, the moderators stopped taking you seriously.

How exactly did you not do this to yourself?

by contrast you take yourselves VERY SERIOUSLY INDEED.

Do you have anything worthwhile to say?

uh.jpg

But what do I know? You've been on the internet since 1988.

The last bunch of posts on this thread make it clear why some people probably don't bother speaking out, if they're just going to be shot down as whiny idiots.

Keeping it civil is good. However I think you are giving a free pass to those in "your corner" who have come into this thread and declared that those who have issue with the moderation policies are ungrateful complainers.

If you are going to ban a poster for personally attacking another poster in a mean-spirited over the line way then you do it systematically. You don't wait until grievances have piled up on both sides and then drop the ban guillotine. Mod actions involve too much discussion (lol irony) and too much drama as is. They should consist of an action (that can be ratcheted up with repeated offenses) and an explanation that points to explicitly stated rules that are readily available on the board.

Yes, there's moderator judgment involved. And everyone I know who is a mod strikes me as pretty even-keeled. I just think the process is very messy now and could be improved on. Making the call between playful teasing and mean spirited meta is a job I don't envy fwiw.

OK here's my personal opinion on bans:

They should be for people who systematically disrupt the day to day running of the board, on purpose. JW's script stuff comes to mind here. And having said that, I like Jon. But it should be within someone's power to stop a person from causing the board to not function the way it should.

OK? I think we're all in agreement on that front at least (I hope?).

Pesonal issue bans are obviously always a grey area, there is no way we'll ever get agreement on them. My stance is that I'd like to see people who consistently ignore requests to stop the ugly shit they are flinging to at least be given a red card cool off. Again I like to think everyone is in agreement on that - though the who and why might be in debate.

Permabans is the big issue here though surely. And I think in the end, regardless of wether we "permaban" anyone, they're going to come back in some form if they're that determined.

All else is just sturm und drang, really.

And as an addendum, I didnt agree with anything else you've said so far bnw, but I do agree with your consistency point.

The real solution is BAN GABBNEB because a) it's Gabbneb and b) it's something to point to when the Passantino fanboys when they pipe up.

I am a Board Moderation so my opinion counts!!

btw I do have a lot of faith in Keith, Stet and *most* of the current admins. I would have more faith in Dan if he took up a night course in Human Resources and Business Communication.

Would have liked to see a bit more transparency in the Passantino case. I can easily imagine Dom doing all that but I really haven't seen much evidence.

If you are going to ban a poster for personally attacking another poster in a mean-spirited over the line way then you do it systematically. You don't wait until grievances have piled up on both sides and then drop the ban guillotine.

This isn't really what happened with Dom though. He'd been contituing to post personal insults and harassive things for a few years now, and he'd been warned and yellow carded about it. He was even banned once before, but was allowed to return to the board, with the assumption that he would have to change his ways. Looks like he didn't, so he got permanently banned. To me this doesn't look like some guillotine dropping from the sky all of a sudden. Whether or not you agree that he should be banned permanently, I think the mods have acted pretty systematically here. If you do personal attacks and harassment a few times, you get yellow carded, maybe even temp banned. You're given a chance to drop the abusive behaviour and continue posting here; I'm sure this has happened with many ILXors. But if you continue the abusive behaviour for years despite warnings and temp bans, is it really that surprising that you end up permabanned? I think the mods' actions in these cases have been pretty consistent and fair.

I should clarify that in my last post that I have seen plenty of evidence in regards to the run of the mill stuff from Dom (personal insults burv). What I mean is that I really didn't see any of the extreme offences that I presume led to the final permabanning and banishment to the internet's wrestling/mondeo pop/masturbation boards for the big man.

If you are going to ban a poster for personally attacking another poster in a mean-spirited over the line way then you do it systematically. You don't wait until grievances have piled up on both sides and then drop the ban guillotine. Mod actions involve too much discussion (lol irony) and too much drama as is. They should consist of an action (that can be ratcheted up with repeated offenses) and an explanation that points to explicitly stated rules that are readily available on the board.

We did. We permabanned him once, warned him not to do it again and let him back in. We then dropped multiple temp bans, thread bans and yellow cards on him essentially saying "stop doing this ad-hominem snipey shit". I actually think we gave him way more chances than we would have given a poster we weren't familiar with. Fwiw "warning - yellow card - x number of temp bans - permaban" is my preferred process to follow but that's a matter for other mods as well.

FWIW Darragh I really don't think the board as a whole needs to know the ins and outs of offboard exchanges and I don't believe they have a right to absolute transparency, especially when there are real life situations involved that shouldn't by all rights be used as a football in whether or not someone should be banned from an internet message board. But since Some Dude went ahead and posted it anyway despite my saying I'd prefer it remained offline (seriously dude WTF?!) I should probably explain a bit more, especially if this is going to carry on being brought up.

I really don't think the Lex knew it was a suicide note he was posting onboard (just over two years ago). I know because I read it at the time things kicked off - it didn't even occur to me it was a suicide note, it just read like an ex-girlfriend laying into in an ex-boyfriend. I'm not familiar with the IRL circumstances here and its none of my business - I'm willing to take Dom on his word that that's what it was, but you wouldn't have known. Posting a link to an ex-gf of a poster laying into a them would definitely get you a temp ban in today's No Meta Bitching ILX, an obvious suicide note should get you a permaban in any era of ILX, as Dan points out. If Lex pulls something similar again I'm saying now I will at least tempban him, despite him being a friend IRL.

When the link was deleted at Dom's request, the response from (I believe Pashmina) read something along the lines of "yes, but you have to promise to drop this". It's two years later and Dom was still using this episode in an attempt to get the Lex banned, or at least as an argument to get his own ban rescinded. It's perfectly possible he believes Lex knew exactly what he was doing, but in the same email he accused the same poster of threatening violence on people (we checked, this didn't seriously happen) and compounded this with by gratuitously insulting the mod who banned him. Adding to this the repeated warnings, the seeming inability to stop persistent ad hominem snide attacks at a long list of posters who irritated him (including people like Tracer Hand who no one ever has beef with), the dragging of offboard internet feuds onto ILX, and a complete breakdown of trust that would make it impossible to take seriously any assurances he might make about his future behaviour, the response was "fuck this, Dom is never posting again".

Even the posters defending Dom have been laying in caveats along the lines of "I know he can do a lot of nasty shit, but..." and I recognise that Dom could be a really good poster when he wanted to be. I wish there was a way to separate out the poster who was a great contributor to football and Brit politics threads, one who I enjoyed talking to and usually agreed with, from the nasty stuff, but that doesn't seem possible. There's a general consensus among admins that Dom became more trouble than his good posts were worth. I think where people disagree, they're disagreeing over the ratio of trouble to good posts, or something.

From what I can tell, a lot of concern on this thread arises from the fact that:

a) the mods didn't make it clear the extent to which Dom had crossed a line. I think we have now.

b) that it might happen to other posters who the mods regularly argue with - I can assure people on this thread that unless you significantly ratchet up your creepiness and nastiness that isn't going happen. To my knowledge we have had more problems with Dom's behaviour, and more emails complaining about it, than we have with any other poster in ILX history. He doesn't seem to have any idea how to get over even trivial shit with people.

c) that we're taking an Us vs Them attitude that is going to lead to posters being victimised in future - I can find people on this thread hugely frustrating to argue with from time to time but none of you are even in the same ballpark, not even approaching it.

This thread has really hammered home to me that ultra-combative hardman modding is utterly counterproductive - you have to realise that the natural response to being repeatedly snarked at even as a mod is to snark right back. I know I'm not immune to this myself, especially snide pops at eg Enrique, I for one am going to do my best to avoid that from now on.

I'm going to be away for the internet for the rest of this weekend by the way, so there will probably be no more responses from me here, hence an attempt to draw a line underneath it.

FWIW Darragh I really don't think the board as a whole needs to know the ins and outs of offboard exchanges and I don't believe they have a right to absolute transparency

you may have mistaken or mixed in my posts with someone else's matt- going only on the available evidence posted on ILX i think anyone complaining that dom's permaban came out of the blue is being facetious. i don't know about any off board exchanges and i'm not interested in finding out.

Ok my bad - sorry!

fwiw i only realised that lj post i linked to two years ago was a suicide note, or connected with an attempted suicide, in this thread right here - for years i've been wondering wtf dom was going on about. i'm still not sure i even believe it given that we're just taking him at his word - it didn't read like one in the slightest. also, that's not the sort of behaviour i've engaged in before or since, so...

my main problem, which ship touched on earlier, is that all these discussions end up as like the top 10 or 15 posters (frequency-wise) arguing with the mods and the mods using the feelings of "the rest of ilx" as reasoning for some decisions, and yet, we can't quantify who these people are. and of course, no one trusts polls. there needs to be a way to remedy this i think.

Jordan, this is a good point and it is right. It's also one of the reasons why I put in SB in the first place, because it would at least get some form of community opinion and mean that bannings were not just the judgement calls of moderators.

If SB was about community opinion, then I think the amount of SBs that gets you banned should be considerably higher. At the moment we have about 10 000 registered users. If we assume that maybe 10% of those 10 000 are actually regular posters, then banning someone for 51 SBs would represent the "community opinion" of 5% of regular posters.

Also, ILX hasn't had a proper FAQ for months. There's no easy-to-find information about what clicking "suggest ban" means, so it could be that some non-regular posters (or regulars who don't read meta threads) have used the function under some false assumption on what it does. For example, I initially thought "suggest ban" was merely a way to inform the mods about some questionable posts. The "suggest" part implies that you're only suggesting someone to be banned, not actually voting for him to be banned permanently.

Maybe, when you click on "suggest ban" and are asked to confirm it, there could be a text box that actually explains what suggest ban means and what might happen to the poster you're SBing.

Hi Tuomas, I agreed to do something about wording, probably in the confirmation page about that, so yes. That said, I'm not convinced that there are many people clicking on it without knowing what it does.

There are about 300 regular posters, by some measure, although it's not clear to me that being a poster is correlated to your right to vote on these matters. It's a matter of opinion as to where the line should be drawn, but I can't see a good reason to change it right now. What I am thinking about is knocking off votes that are over a year maybe, but this will require some thinking through.

You're right about the FAQ. This isn't just my call and it sort of happened by accident, but I think having an FAQ encourages board lawyers and confuses the general "don't be a dick" rule. Nothing wrong with something explaining what the functions are though, so I will sort that out.

x-post looks like we agree on that

Okay, added in some wording temporarily. Will need to remember to change it in the code base.

Thanks for adding the text, Keith. With 10 000 registered users and no FAQ I'm sure at least some people have used SB without really knowing what it does. Now even non-regulars posters should get the idea.

There are about 300 regular posters, by some measure, although it's not clear to me that being a poster is correlated to your right to vote on these matters. It's a matter of opinion as to where the line should be drawn, but I can't see a good reason to change it right now.

I think a good enough reason is that the SB system has been in place for little over 6 months now, and already about 10 regular users have been banned. Out of those 10 I think only one or two might've been banned under the pre-SB moderation system. Also, if you don't count Dom, I don't really think the absence of these banned people made ILX better in any significant way, and with people like Ethan gone it's much more of a loss than a gain. If, like you say, ILX has about 300 regulars, then I'd say the fact that 3 percent of all those regulars have been banned in only 6 months is not a sign of a functioning system. So either the SB limit that leads to ban should be higher, or SBs should wear off after a certain period. I think the latter would be a better option, because at this rate all regular posters will get SBed sometime in the future.

Also, if you don't count Dom, I don't really think the absence of these banned people made ILX better in any significant way, and with people like Ethan gone it's much more of a loss than a gain.

^^^

although it's not clear to me that being a poster is correlated to your right to vote on these matters

yeah esp. considering that there could be lots of lurkers using SB, 'having their say' in that respect but not posting opinions.

I don't really think the absence of these banned people made ILX better in any significant way

this isn't really the point - idea is to make the bannees "better"

Well, if the bannees are to be made better, then the resulting ban should automatically be temporary and not permanent. No point in making someone "better" if he's gone forever.

it IS temporary e.g. you came back

having learned a valuable lesson

y'all be trippin

It is temporary only if you have an alternative ILX account (and a alternative internet connection, since your IP address is blocked) which you can use to beg the mods to unban you. I assume some people would find this undignified, so they'll never do it. This might be the reason Ethan hasn't returned. If the mods agree that Suggest Bans should be only temporary, then they should be automatically revoked after a certain period of time.

(xx-post)

i dunno, if ethan was worried about dignity i doubt he would've got himself s-banned on purpose the way he did. why speculate like this?

If I remember correctly, the reason Ethan hasn't returned is that he has real life to live, or suchlike. Ethan is probably very wise if this is the case.

But since Some Dude went ahead and posted it anyway despite my saying I'd prefer it remained offline (seriously dude WTF?!)

sorry, man, like i said i was just passing on what Dom said and if the act of doing so or the content of the message was really forbidden one of the dozen mods watching the thread could've deleted it 30 seconds later and i wouldn't have complained.

It is temporary only if you have an alternative ILX account (and a alternative internet connection, since your IP address is blocked) which you can use to beg the mods to unban you. I assume some people would find this undignified, so they'll never do it. This might be the reason Ethan hasn't returned. If the mods agree that Suggest Bans should be only temporary, then they should be automatically revoked after a certain period of time.

(xx-post)

― Tuomas

DUUUUUUUUUUUUDE it's been repeated multiple times that SBs will only ever be temp unless you have - in the opinion of the mods - egregiously overstepped the boundaries and/or done so after many warnings. pretty sure ethan didn't 'beg' to be unbanned and yet - wow - he IS unbanned. he's just not posting anymore. pretty sure gabbneb wouldn't have begged either!

Ah, I didn't know Ethan was unbanned without him asking for it. I'm pretty sure Gabbned asked to be unbanned on the Mod Req board though.

no he didnt

and actually you asking to get unbanned didnt directly contribute to your unbanning either, there was a agreement among the mods to let you back after 1 month

That was a good post Matt and may just shut me up.

I concur. Especially

This thread has really hammered home to me that ultra-combative hardman modding is utterly counterproductive - you have to realise that the natural response to being repeatedly snarked at even as a mod is to snark right back. I know I'm not immune to this myself, especially snide pops at eg Enrique, I for one am going to do my best to avoid that from now on.

Seriously, I know there are scamps who may wear the patience of mods, but when the condescending "you don't need to know" or the "if you only knew how hard it was to be a mod" or Tom's classic "Guess what? [ THREAD LOCKED BY A MODERATOR ]" routines get trotted out as well, it can be frustrating to some who are just looking for some answers.

You know, I didn't know about any of this Dom following posters around being a psychopath business. I just knew him as a clever writer, a good guy and someone who did ^^ This a lot. I realize that some of this stuff happens off-board where no one sees it, but when a favorite poster just gets permabanned without detailed explanation, it's irritating.

I hate to say it, and maybe if I had a job that wasn't looking at the internet for eight hours a day it would be easier, but for better or for worse, I have an emotional investment in ILX. My wife posts here. We share our baby pictures with others and celebrate birthdays. I've been here stanning for William Martin Joel since 2003. I don't have any more right than anyone else to an explanation i guess, but when you get a bunch of STFUs from mods over curious issues instead of some rational discussion, it's disappointing.

And all that said, talking to a mod in an e-mail has always yielded pretty decent results for me. So there's that.

Tuomas, it seems likely we're not going to get anywhere with this - I respect your opinion, I just don't agree with it. I will definitely change my mind if I see bad stuff happening.

Pleasant, it's very frustrating I think when decent people can't get a decent answer, but I do think it's kind of understandable, which is not to defend it, but to say that my view is that moderators and the people who seem to enjoy winding them up are equally at fault. I think that 'scamps that wear the patience of mods' is possibly underplaying it a bit; I think there are people who deliberately try to exasperate mods, but then this is of course a question of opinion.

There's an interesting thought experiment... I wonder if Matt had posted what he posted at the start of this thread would it have been very different? Great posts though they are, I'm kind of of the opinion that we would still have had 600 or so posts after it. Maybe I'm wrong here, and it doesn't mean that it wouldn't have been a good thing to do, post it at the start of the thread. Next time something kicks off, we should try it and see.

For what it's worth, please do email moderators personally, if you don't feel as though you're getting a good answer. I know it's much easier for people to calmly respond to question off-board than it is on board. The reasons for this are I think interesting, but another story.

That last bit is true.

I know you're walking a narrow wobbly line here Keith and trying to please some difficult customers but I have to say the new SB message is kind of hilariously ominous/earnest.

Well, hopefully it serves a purpose.

The alternative is we install Ned as benign dictator ;)

― Enormous Epic (Matt DC), Friday, May 1, 2009 10:45 AM (Yesterday)

emperor of ilx, son of heavens!

― rip dom passantino 3/5/09 never forget (max), Friday, May 1, 2009 10:47 AM (Yesterday)

Hmm, visions.

I hesitate kicking this thread back to life a bit -- last few days have been busy for me and most everything that can be said has been, though of course it's not like everything's been fully put to bed here. (To get this out of the way -- all mod decisions regarding bans I concur with and Dom has no sympathy from me for all the reasons already noted.) Still many of the last few posts here in particular, from Matt DC's lengthy note on, are crucial, and with that in mind:

Having been in on the ground floor of ILX from day one and having been involved in a lot of the major decisions over the fate of the place over the years -- sometimes just as a sounding board, sometimes more -- I have always felt that there's a clear set of reasons why so many people have been here all this time, and that a lot of it revolves around a sense that there's a core group of people who want the best for the place and seek to maintain that and, where possible, improve it. There's never any set membership for this group, and it doesn't require one to be a mod -- sometimes, as when Graham ran the place and was acting up, it was because so many people who *weren't* Graham wanted something better that enabled ILX to move on from there.

I'd say that we are actually at a very healthy balance at present, more than might be thought from all the discussions and arguments over recent months, where this group consists of both the sitewide mods and many good voices outside the mods as well -- Aimless and Pleasant Plains being two good examples, as can be seen by their most recent posts. That there's frustrations and confusion at points as we all try to make our individual concerns and explanations clear shouldn't be surprising -- that's how groups work, and I've yet to be in a group that isn't like that -- but what should be gratifying to all of us is that we've found a way over the years to still agree on a general consensus which most board members not only enjoy but deeply appreciate.

Based on the actions and attitudes of those who do much more moderator work than I've done, I really can safely say that even if I wasn't a sitewide mod, even if I didn't know a lot of the private discussion and review that goes on, I'd feel ILX has been in very good hands of late, and that the reactions you see just above here, from Matt and Keith in particular, underscores the fact that we are very much listening to what people have to say. The emotional investment that Pleasant Plains mentions is no less felt, in different but equally strong ways, by the mods and many others as well. I think many of us recognize it even if we don't always consciously verbalize it, or think it -- and it doubtless explains how involved these type of discussions we have get.

The amount of comments that essentially run 'sure, ILX really frustrates the hell out of me sometimes but compared to any other webboard it's the best place ever' can't even be counted now, they've cropped up so many times -- and that's a hell of a compliment. We should always remember that this happened because so many of us brought a lot to the board to start with, and want to keep doing so. So long as that's the case, we'll all be fine.

we still cool then? *fist bump*

ILX LOL

When ILX dies, it will be due to a lack of good people. It will not be due to a lack of amateur trolls who consider themselves too worldly to compete on /b/.

ILX has been around for what, a decade? The neighborhood committee might have a clue.

Whoa, Tomboto and Cheney dropping bombs the same day.

thought it would have been kind of cool if no one had replied to that tbh

tom please come back for good instead of doing these cryptic 3-posts spurts every six weeks

You are with us or against us.

http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2007/07/22/mucci_narrowweb__300x341,2.jpg

i thought tombot had secret work stuff which is why he couldnt ilx anymore