Completely setting aside this particular incident, since I don't know the context of it, I'll just say that this has happened in the past.

And, well, strictly speaking, he's not actually supposed to be making those decisions, but nobody really has the heart to tell him to stop it. Or at least I don't. He's a part of the team too, and telling a member of the staff that the way they handled a report was BAD and WRONG is how we lost Artee, I feel. I've mentioned it to him before, but every time he's handled a report in a way I've disagreed with, it's because me or Crimson left it in the report list for later perusal. I feel partially responsible for any time that he's made a call that I didn't agree with, since if I was really against it, I would have just cleared the report in the first place. As such, I've held off on really getting on his case about it.

If other posters have started noticing it too, though, and if there seems to be a consensus, I'll be more forceful. I don't really want to alienate a valuable staff member, but consistent moderation is important. People have to know where the line is drawn. I've found that the vast majority of bans as of late have been on people who were aware they'd crossed a line, and I'd like to keep it that way.

I'd like to hear other opinions on Zeke's moderation before I completely commit, though.

>>162565
Admiral, I heard you sucked on a "cream Popsicle" for your position as admin. Is it true?

Wait, why am I asking you? You'll just deny it or dance around the issue.

(USER WAS SENTENCED TO HARD LABOR IN SIBERIA)

I think Zeke can be touchy on some issues.

However, as much as Manley can be an ass, Mikie's behaviour yesterday was not appropriate either and I don't think Zeke made a mistake for sending this tap his way, especially since this ban is only for an hour.

There's witty jokes you can make at some user's expense and jumping his threads ignoring the post therein just to throw in insults and boasting that's the only thing you feel like doing.

I think the warning was appropriate and it's disappointing to see Mikie flipping out about it so much and spreading it everywhere.

That warning was deserved.

e: a word

Last edited at Tue, Nov 25th, 2014 03:18

>>162565
>telling a member of the staff that the way they handled a report was BAD and WRONG is how we lost Artee, I feel.
Uh.
Telling a member of the team they're making mistakes is how you lost a mod.
That's.
Uh.
Tragic.
But, how in the everloving fuckall did you just seriously say "well we wouldn't really want to let our staff members know when they've made a mistake or did something BAD or WRONG because that might (hurt their feelings)(bruise their ego)(not be Sesame Street-tier methodology for dealing with an issue.)"
These are adults we're talking about. Zeke is a grown man. Artee is a grown man. This pony shit has people's brains all twisted that we're fucking babies and even mods can't have their fellow mods say 'yo that was wrong dude, why do you keep doing shit that way?'
The fuck, man.
>I don't have the heart to tell him to stop doing thing that's wrong
Then get the fucking heart or you shouldn't be in a position of authority. Troofax. And if you feel 'responsible' because you didn't handle the report yourself, then the problem is either you're being lazy (both in not handling the reports and not dealing with your staff member making mistakes) or in that you haven't hired people who will deal with the reports you don't deal with, in a way that's appropriate.
>>162568
>>162569
>>162571
That is quickly becoming one of the oldest pastas around; if someone posts Navy Seal, do they also get the same hour ban? Now seeing shit descend back into warnings/bans for the most inconsequential banter and potentialy-hurty-feelings is what's disappointing after some marginal improvements over the last year.

>>162572
Hey man, I'm not saying I made the right decision or that I'm not lazy. Mea culpa. Mea maxima culpa. But the question isn't "dude, don't ban people for this or lock threads for that". Of course I've said that. When someone makes a mistake, I let them know. Who the hell do you think I am? What I haven't done is just tell Zeke to never perform mod action at all. It's not telling him that he's doing it wrong that has me hesitating, it's telling him he shouldn't be doing it at all.

And I take it you're seconding OP?

>>162575
Yes.
As far as everything else goes its also about the bigger overall picture, both for users and staff as grown ass adults with few exceptions.

inb4 bs about a handful of 15-17 year olds as if that's not still grown.

>>162575
And you're confusing here.
you talk about how telling artee that his decisions were bad and wrong is how you 'lost' him but what relevance does that have if you're also saying it hasn't been stoppong you from the same with zeke?

>>162577
I'm not really sure where I was going with that. Mostly apologizing to Artee if they're around? But then I wouldn't have done much different given the chance to do it again, and in the end it had to be that way.

I mean it's not that hard to tell him 'slow your roll. stay in your lane.'

Artee isn't applicable to the situation other than to raise the megative implication and possibility that you might be too milquetoast.

>>162578
Ok.

>>162575
Ya.

>giving the screencap of a warning to someone else to post instead of taking it up with me personally
Nice, dude.


*edited* my apologies for being a bit overly harsh*

>>162582
An hour is not a warning.

If a poster wants to take up the general issue a staff member's actions, it is not something to take up 'personally.'

If someone wants to talk about a staffer's decisions with theadmins, that ccan't be accomplished with talking to that staffer.

Posting a specific example relevant to a recent event is not 'classless.'

Posting a sarcastic one word reply of 'Classy' is the opposite of showing yourself as a grown ass man capable of either taking criticism or rebutting the idea that the OP (and others) are wrong to say you shouldn't be making moderation decisions.

Silence would havr served you infinitely better.

>>162583
Hm. It looks like a warning, its messaged like a warning, and it acts like a warning. Background, all the text on it, and so on. But it's not a warning?

>>162584
Its an hour ban. Look at the times and the actual details.
thats another thing I dont like. Blocking someone from posting for an hour or more and calling it a 'warning' because... the background is different? Because it says 'warning' instead of ban even though its actually banning you for a certain time?

Sounds like bs to me.

> acts like a warning
> a warning acts as a message you acknowledge and then can post again

> whereas a ban prevents you from posting for a set time

HMM

>>162585
So you can't post for an hour, big deal, I'm pretty sure the highlight is that the timeout counts as a warning on your profile and not a ban.

All bans an hour down to three seconds are classified as warnings. One or two second bans are messages. Longer than an hour and it's a ban.

It's a warning, by our definition. Just a very odd time frame. Most warnings are three seconds to fifteen minutes and it is quite rare to see an hour long warning.

>>162587
I don't think there's anyone who gives a shit what's on their 'profile' or rap sheet or whatever you wanna call it. Calling a ban a warning when it's functionally identical is stupid andnpointless. It only serves to let you say 'well it was only a warning lol get over it it's not like you got banned.' Even though you did. When it doesn't change the further point anyways that it wasn't something you should get 'warned' for anyways let alone the fact that even a warning means if you do the same inconsequential thing again the punishment will be even more, plus the message it sends to everyone else that oh man, better watch your jokes and banter, m8!
Lol seriously dude.

>>162583
He had been given warnings like this before, for similar reasons. This wasn't exactly a staggering escalation.
I know this poster and consider him a good friend. It isn't really unreasonable to poke me and ask why I did it. Appeals exist for that reason as well.
If someone wants to talk about my actions with an admin that's fine, but posting a screencap without any context isn't exactly great either.
>Posting a specific example relevant to a recent event is not 'classless.'
>Posting a sarcastic one word reply of 'Classy' is the opposite of showing yourself as a grown ass man capable of either taking criticism or rebutting the idea that the OP (and others) are wrong to say you shouldn't be making moderation decisions.
Having some (admittedly overdone, blame the lack of sleep if you like, but either way, I apologize) sarcasm is not the same of showing myself as the opposite of a "grown ass man". I apologize for the snarkiness.

>>162586
this >>162587
It was set to an hour so that it couldn't just be clicked away (and I don't remember how the quick reply handles blocked posts because of a ban)
I did that specifically so he could say something if he wanted to

>>162589
You either have a very, very broad definition of "banter" or are sadly unfamiliar with the meaning. Considering the context of the warning, it wasn't just for that post.

>>162589
1. A warning and a ban are not functionally identical. You get a series of warnings and then a ban. It's all in the rules, if you care to read them.
2. There are some valid points along your train of thought, which is why hour long warnings are so rarely used.

>>162588
That's the dumbest self-definition ive heard and you basically just arbitrarily redefined a term to fit.
consider this official complaint about it separate from the rest of this issue. A warning is a warning and a ban is a ba. Changing it so you can ban someone for an hour but still say you didnt ban them and only warned them is stupid and selfnserving so you can downplay someones complaints about the 'warnings'. 'It was just a warning who cares.'

>>162591
> navy seal-tier copypasta
> no, this is something much worse than mikie type memeish banter!
Lol what bro

>>162593
http://www.ponychan.net/chan/?p=rules#7
It may have been redefined at some point, but it was quite definitely not by him, and not now. This has been there forever.

>>162594
Perhaps Zeke should invent a way to ban a person for multiple posts, which would greatly reduce people's inability to comprehend how there are other posts involved. This post specifically was rather semi-arbitrarily picked. By itself, it's rather fine, but in the context mate...

>>162594
It's more likely
http://www.ponychan.net/chan/oat/res/39533669.html#39533821
And this
http://www.ponychan.net/chan/oat/res/39533669.html#39533843

>>162595
I've seen posters post screencaps complaining about bans that were just copy/pasted across all thier IP addresses, with posts chosen in an entirely arbitrary manner.

>>162594
One of my complaints about the ban system is that you can only show one offending post. That wasn't the only post there like that.

>>162595
>Perhaps Zeke should invent a way to ban a person for multiple posts
damn, beat me to it

>>>162595
Saying 'you' doesn't imply that Yang personally reinvented the term right at this moment.

> Perhaps Zeke should...
Yes. There's a lot of things Zeke should do, and none of them involving moderation. Like how I can't get autoupdate in threads on a phone browser when it works at any other site.

>>162593
>>162598
Like I said here >>162192 it is very rarely done and it serves a distinct purpose.

>>162598
>Like how I can't get autoupdate in threads on a phone browser when it works at any other site.
Issues with automatic thread updating are up to the Ponychan-X dev.

>>162600
Pchan X works on the phone, but it eats bandwidth.

I haven't chimed in yet, but here's my two cents.

Cent 1: I don't know about y'all, but when I think "ban", I think permaban, or at least like a week. Anything less than that is a warning to me. Something that says "You need to stop or you're going to be dealt with more permanently."

Cent 2: This isn't the first thing people have complained about regarding Zeke, but for this thing in particular, Zeke totally did nothing wrong. Mikie was being a huge ass in that thread. Telling him to step away for a while, since he was obviously putting up his act out of anger and without thinking it through, was absolutely the correct decision.

>>162565

>telling a member of the staff that the way they handled a report was BAD and WRONG is how we lost Artee, I feel.

so we should be thankful for it?

>>162603
> he actually thinks mikie is or was angry
epic trolled

>>162565
>>162572
I've never had any qualms about telling any staff member when they were wrong or fucking something up. Regardless of whether it was a friend, or the admin, or the owner. I don't think you should ever hold back from telling a staff member when and why they are fucking something up.

I cant go a full day of work without something dramatic happening.

I'll talk to Zeke and get his context, in the meantime i'll look at the thread and see what happened.

>>162607

Please remove kebab. He is not a Serb anymore, and he should not be the one making these decisions.

This isn't the first time he's done this either. He has also bombed a thread that was technically breaking no international laws in the past that was headed towards Serbian freedom, albeit bloody. But it's not like anyone actually needed to be protected from ethnic cleansing in that thread. In fact, I bet the person who was the reason it ended up locked was just a Turk.

i broke the rules and was warned for this before. the ban was warranted. zeke was in the right

theres been times when he was being a huge cunt to me. but THATS OK!

thats a-ok

but when i do it

boom A BAN

i did that because he came to a thread that had NOTHING to do with him. and came in tell me im "blocked"

then i fuck with him, he goes crawling to the mods like always. oh and i get chewed out by manley whiteknights

well thats why i did that. he's a fucking loser but whatever. it sucks for /oat/ because people still enable his bullshit and bite his stupid ass threads. rince and repeat every day and night

guess ill just try to ignore him. should be easy since he filtered me anyway lol

>>162604
underrated post

>>162610
that he's been un-permad like what, twice now is BS enough for me.

>>162611
it would be a wonderful thing for /oat/ if he was permab& again

Sweetiebot is only to handle Porn or Spam reports from now on, apologies to everyone for the snafu.

>>162612
We could make a list of people that we think /oat/ would be better off without.
Given enough support, we could ban the people, not for transgressing the lines, but because we just don't want them here.

Sounds like a good idea.

Take note of those, Fen.

Last edited at Tue, Nov 25th, 2014 16:00

>>162614
>Manley
>not transgressing lines
mysides/keks/lels

>>162614
are you trying to say that manley doesnt cross any lines?

c'mon artee, you should know this isnt true...

even more since he has such a history including a few permabans

>>162622
I hate that "a few permabans" is a thing, i really do.

>>162625
>>162622

Well god, when you say it like that...

>>162614

i guess manley doesnt transgress lines because you think hes lel so funny or whatever

>>162633
If by "transgress lines" you guys mean "break rules"... Well, then he can't be doing that, otherwise he would get banned again, right?

Last edited at Wed, Nov 26th, 2014 07:34

>>162641
ha ha ha

oh wow

>>162642
What? If people report him for breaking the rules... Then he would be banned. If he's here it must be because he's either not breaking the rules or people don't report him.

>>162643
>>162641
>he thinks that's actually how it works
ahahahah I bet he think voting in elections matters too

>>162644
It does.

>>162641
i think manley is ban proof

no matter what he does

he wont get b&

his super elite ban shields! completely ran and fueled by his own neckbeard shavings and the tears of his that was created by the thought of being turned down by his crush!

BAN SHIELD

if thats too much, im sorry. i wanted to be silly for a sec

but seriously, manley is ban proof

Last edited at Wed, Nov 26th, 2014 10:31

>>162641

there was a thread a short while back where he came in and started making fun of mikie for his pinkie pie shit. when mikie + me mocked him back for throwing stones in glass houses we both got warned and he got nothing.

he's been permabanned twice (maybe more?). the only thing manley does different now as compared to back then is hes replaced a great deal of the dumb racist, sexist stuff he says with talking about pokemon sex, or saying very similar things and just being more obtuse about it. i don't think he's ban proof (though i do think people like orange and artee have ridiculously favored him in the past), but i think some mods have bought into the whole victim complex thing he does whenever anyone ever returns the shit he gives to other people. that or they really don't notice that most of manley's current posting content is nothing but eternally toeing the line of the same stuff he got kicked off the site for in the past anyway

>>162647
> artee have ridiculously favored him in the past
I'll have you know that though I have supported him as a user, as a mod I have never done anything to favour him above anyone else.
I haven't undone bans or forcefully negociated to lift or relieve bans or issued major protest on other mod's decision regarding him.
I don't think there's any significant occasion where I banned people unreasonably for assaulting Manley, while leaving Manley's transgressions intact.
If there was transgressions I let Manley get away with it's because I was insecure about how to deal with such transgressions overall, not because Manley did it and had mods taken a decision towards these transgressions, I would express my regret but let it happen.
The honest fact is that at some point I was even more reluctant to intervene as a mod in cases of harassment against people I sort of liked out of fear that my sentiments on those people would cloud the validity of my actions. And that point is also one of the reasons I did resign.

So in short, I deny that I have made any actions unfairly in favour of Manley. I'd say that even the opposite would be true.

Of course any other mod can put me on my place here if he wishes. I'd be disappointed, but I hope I haven't left this impression with them.

>>162647
>here was a thread a short while back where he came in and started making fun of mikie for his pinkie pie shit. when mikie + me mocked him back for throwing stones in glass houses we both got warned and he got nothing.

I hope thats an exaggeration, you dont happen to remember what the thread was do you?
The number preferably, but anything in the OP would be appreciated, as i might be able to dig it up and look at it.

>>162650
I can vouch for artee here, ponka was a bit paranoid towards the end about being biased towards people.

>>162651

No idea, it was weeks ago. I don't even remember exactly what he said. All I remember was that mikie made a joke about something or another and manley suddenly turned things really serious by starting up about the Pinkie thing in a negative light. And thus came the jokes about being a 30 year old virgin who spends most of his time trying to decipher the dark secrets of the female gender in response and apparently that was far worse than starting things in the first place and got people warnings.

Which is just yet another thing Manley does, really. He starts up talks about really controversial things from a really shitty viewpoint, and when people point this out he either acts like he's being persecuted or desperately tells people "I'm trying to improve." Of course, the only thing he's improved at is being subtle.

>>162650

I have zero reason to believe you because any time I ever criticized his behavior you desperately jumped to defend him till the very end and told me that I "hated fun" because I wanted manley to stop being manley. Then again, you did that whenever I criticized anything.

But okay. Cross one thing I didn't like about you as a mod off the list.

All this goes back to people being able to skirt the lines, prod or provoke, and generally be shitbags very carefully, and instead of punitive action being taken against them by a proactive force fully engaged and involved in the community they're doing it in, the punitive actions end up being taken against non-shitbags who get tired of their stupid fuckin' shenanigans or just fed up with being subtly targeted; the actual victim(s) and people who actually feel any kind of emotion whatsoever and who are worthwhile members of a community punished for not putting up with the BS of people who feel nothing and are pretty much worth nothing to said community, by a force that only finds itself involved or engaged ex-post-facto.

Last edited at Wed, Nov 26th, 2014 14:19

>>162654
Yes, I agree it's a problem that you're still around."

>>162652
Damn, i'll try to keep a better handle on things from now on.
I've said multiple times that if a "He started it!" sitution happens, then both parties should be getting punished for it, apologies for it not happening in this case.

>>162652
I think you do hate fun, but that's besides the point.
mostly because the vast majority of your posts that I see seem to be sarcastic comments to indicate that something or someone is bad.

I'll admit my mistake, if it is there, of jumping into this thread only knowing half the truth. since I only caught part of the issue.
As far as I know the core of this dispute is about Manley telling Mikie he's filtering him. It's a thing that I see Manley do sometimes when he's having a discussion on some dumb subject and he's all like "I'm not listening to you, because bullshit reason". Sure, not the best comment to make, but that's simply deflected with not responding or just responding on the subject further.
Then I did see Mikie go anon to spite and make a bunch of "lol you're an autistic manchild" at Manley around threads where he didn't even partake into the discussion and kept it up till the ban was placed, despite others telling him to cut it out.

If Manley told Mikie off simply to tell him off while not closing a discussion they were having, I think Manley deserves that ban as much as Mikie did and I'm wrong in my assumptions.If not, I personally don't feel any proper reason why Manley was wrong and Mikie is the hero.

When it comes to racist/homophobe/sexist/transphobic comments, I don't think they deserve a ban, at least not on the level I see Manley post those.
When it comes to (poke)sexual comments, I think there are rules against such content and it's at the mod's discretion how far they want to handle this. I don't think Manley makes it any worse than some other people do. Even I'm not really afraid of a lewd comment from time to time.

>>162657
And if Mikie wants to play Martyr with the whole
"If mods don't get rid of these stupid people plaguing this site, I'll take up the duty of being the hero and harrass this individual till he offs himself off this site"
then I do have issues with that.
That's not how I want this community to work and I definitely don't like how this could be cheered on.

>>162655
*appears behind your back, you were talking to a holo-skeleton*
heh...
*unsheathes katana and stabs you in the back*
NOTHING...
*tips cranium*
PERSONELL, KID!!!!!!

>>162657
>When it comes to racist/homophobe/sexist/transphobic comments, I don't think they deserve a ban, at least not on the level I see Manley post those.
>When it comes to (poke)sexual comments, I think there are rules against such content

>lewdness is worse than racism, homophobia, sexism, transphobia
And here I thought you WEREN'T American.

>>162658
>That's not how I want this community to work
I don't think anyone DOES know how you want the community to work, either because it's impossible to get a clear understanding from your comments what the heck it is you actually think, or because when you do make a coherent statement it says something that doesn't work anyways.

>>162656

thanx

>>162657

thank you for your opinion and stuff. all of that had absolutely nothing to do with what i was responding to, which is your insinuation that manley does not cross boundaries which he alternatively does or at the very least hovers on as hard as he can most of the time.

>>162658

i guess manley doing that is also okay because manley's current relationship with the mods is currently something like "everyone please shield me until you do something i dont like, after which i will complain about you until i get bored and go back to the beginning of the loop"

as fun as arguing about manley is, the fact is that he's not really broken the rules, just annoyed a lot of people

supposed bait threads and trolling are not really bait or trolling when the person genuinely means the things they are posting

and he's insulted users on this site far less on average than most i know

>Zeke does nothing wrong
>someone complains
>"He's only allowed to be a janitor now"
literally what

>>162662

See, technically, that was already the case. He's officially a programmer, not a mod. His job is not to moderate the board. He can leave that to the other folk.

>>162663
Yeah, I think technically he was supposed to just be a programmer and not mod, but they let him mod for a while still. Regardless, I think it's a shitty thing to do to hire someone as a mod and not let them do mod things, especially when they originally let him do mod things and he lost it by doing absolutely nothing. Frankly I'm not even sure why Zeke still wants to be a mod, considering no matter what he does he gets shat on.
>adds webm support that everyone asked for
>"ew why do we have to make a link?"
>"because ponychan's code is shit"
>"then fix it zeeeeekee"
>"I'm trying"
>"fix it faster!"
And this happens for pretty much everything. I'm surprised he hasn't quit yet.

>>162662
More "Zeke shouldn't be modding" "oh right, we meant to get around to that, sorry". I don't think the thread in question had anything to do with anything.

>>162665
That's basically double jeopardy though. You give a guy mod powers, then take them away for no reason, even if you originally didn't mean to give it to them, that's pretty dumb.

>>162664
>>162666
Why care then? Modding is shit and a negative thing to have to do. Not only does it take time from stuff he should be doing instead (let alone life), but just adds to burnout and increases stress on the only coder the site now really has. He shouldn't care, and neither should you. And... >double jeopardy. Doesn't sound like you know what means.

>>162667
>Modding is shit and a negative thing to have to do.

That. He hasn't really "lost" anything here.

>>162667
Fair enough, I mean if I were a mod I would at least want to be able to do all the mod things, but I guess it can be a pretty shitty job.
And yes I know what double jeopardy means. They initially decided he could have mod powers, then for no reason decided against that and revoked them. Unless they had decided from the start that he shouldn't have mod powers but gave them to him anyway, which is another form of stupid.

>>162670
It's the latter.

And even if it wasn't:
Double Jeopardy -

A second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal or conviction or multiple punishments for same offense.

This would require that he be accused of an offense, acquitted of said offense, and then retried for the same offense (with no further offenses having occurred to warrant prosecution - and/or with no new evidence coming to light which may have rendered the initial acquittal invalid.)

>>162670

double jeopardy means to get repeatedly tried for the same offense

>>162671
>>162672
>being this anal and technical about things
He was given a judgement (that he could have mod powers) then it was taken away for no reason (second judgement). The idea is the same or at least similar. Christ.

And if it is the latter, that is really stupid and I think the ponychan mod staff needs to re-evaluate themselves. Like, how do you just let someone have mod powers that you don't want them to have for months? That seems really incompetent.

>>162673
He was originally brought on as a Dev, never as a mod. Mystery solved?

>>162674
Then why give him mod powers in the first place?

>>162675
Mod board access perhaps?

>>162676
Doesn't he have that with his current setup?

>>162677
I meant, perhaps they had to give him a mod account in order for him to view the mod boards.

I'm guessing the dev account is simply a mod account with another title.

>>162664
I'm pretty sure that was concerns over the resources they take up (particularly disk space/bandwidth), nothing to do with the code itself.

>>162673
>>162675
>getting this buttflustered over being wrong with your shoehorned analogy
You just don't have any idea how the shit works, and further, that the position gave him the power to do stuff out of necessity (I mean, wouldn't he need an account with all the full powers to be able to test stuff whenever he needed to? I mean if you make coding changes that alter how a mod does stuff, you need to be able to test it as a programmer.) You're the one overthinking this. Imageboard accounts come in 3 levels; janitor, mod, admin. Why code in a whole new type of account? If you don't know what hell you're talking about just stay silent.

I think there was't an intent to exclude admins/developers from working with the report list, since ponychan is known to have its moments where some mods are busy with stuff and urgent reports could be taken on by those online at the moment even if they're not mods.
I thought this separation of powers only entailed that it shouldn't be an obligation to non-mods to work the reports on top of urgent tasks.

Proper communication, I think, would serve more than cutting off staff from taking care of reports.

If I remember correctly, Zeke was not assigned with an urgent message that he was not to take care of reports. Of course, things could have changed.

>>162664
The only reason I didn't make it so they could be uploaded was because that wold kill our disk space limitations

>>162684
Of course this isn't the first or second time I've said this, but people don't like to listen to things they see as inconvenient

i like to listen to reggae

>>162678
Then why didn't they just do this in the first place?
>>162681
Ah ok, I didn't remember what the exact reason was.
>>162682
>Why code in a whole new type of account?
You don't need to, you just make him a regular mod. Which he should've stayed. The fact that they didn't even want to give him mod powers confuses the fuck out of me. And if he needs to have mod privileges in order to do stuff, why would you take it away? Wouldn't that make him useless?

>>162688
Do what? Say that he should only deal with spam and porn?
I don't know. And (obviously) I can't speak for Zeke. But personally, that's how I would want it if it was me. No getting tangled up in possible drama. Just removing spam and porn if needed.

Technically speaking I don't think he really needs to be a mod. I am pretty sure he has a development environment set up for testing changes and such. But it is probably a lot more practical for everyone if he is a mod.

>>162688
>And if he needs to have mod privileges in order to do stuff, why would you take it away? Wouldn't that make him useless?

He has technical privileges, in that he can work with and test things. He is not supposed to use said privileges in most cases, he is supposed to leave that up to the rest of the mods, whose jobs are mediating and figuring out who's doing what and which goes where and all that jazz. Zeke's job's just coding. He has those privileges, but he doesn't need to use them to do his actual job, and it has been requested that he not use them in all but the most obvious cases. This has very few, if any, actual repercussions for Zeke and the board in general.

Technical limitations with the code have tied up which positions are available, though. It's kind of like forming a militia and you've got the whole armory available to everyone, because you can't lock it for only specific people, but some people don't need guns to fill their roles, and since they aren't as experienced in firearms as the specialists they could do more harm than good if they tried. As such, it has been requested that they not pick up a gun unless absolutely necessary, and in other situations to simply leave things alone for the specialists.

It's a simple matter of trust rather than trying to code out different positions for everyone, which honestly shouldn't be necessary. The way I see it is anyone who can't be trusted to not abuse their tools for things they aren't supposed to be doing probably shouldn't even be on the team in the first place, regardless of what their role is.

>>162689
>But it is probably a lot more practical for everyone if he is a mod.
Which is why it makes no sense why he isn't a mod now.
>>162690
And it would be totally fine if that is the position they had given him in the first place. But when you let someone have privileges for months, and just one day say "eh, I think you shouldn't have them", especially when they did nothing wrong, that just seems pretty slimey and incompetent.
Zeke already goes through enough shit with everyone constantly saying "ZEKE FIX THIS" or "ZEKE WHY DID YOU FUCK UP THIS?". I don't think he needs any more insults. Unless he's cool with this or something, but he hasn't indicated that.

>>162712
The situation is what it was always supposed to be, and was at the start. If you actually read, and what Yang indicated, he's been talked to about this before, and this is not the only time an issue has come up, even if this *one* time it's debatable whether it was right or wrong. No one is insulting him, either, so you can stop being offended on someone else's behalf. And the idea of a coder having enough shit to deal with without moderation issues being raised is one of the very reasons he shouldn't be modding anyways. There's no point in being put in the position where extra criticism can weigh him down when he's invariably going to get enough from the coding end. From all indications he doesn't have an issue with this, since he was added to the team as a developer and not a mod in the first place. So, can we end this pointless, affronted-vicariously-for-someone-else stuff now?

>>162713
If he's ok with this, then that's one thing. He hasn't indicated that however. I know if I were a mod I would want to do mod stuff, but maybe I'm just different like that.

>>162666
>>162670
Satan, i've not 'taken away' anything.
He was hired for coding.
Being able to code for the site requires access to the server right now.
Access to the server means he can do whatever the fuck he wants anyway, with the mod tag only making any day to day things easier / quicker like moving threads or html posting to name a couple basic things.
Almost literally a formality.
He was handling reports because he wanted to, not because he was hired to do it or whatever, but because a user reported an issue and he wanted to fix it.
All I've done is ask him not to do that anymore, and not just because of this single instance but because this exact situation has happened before, only with less publicity.

To use mondo's gun squad analogy, it's like asking your demolitions expert to stop handling the sniper rifles because while being able to fire sticks of dynamite several kilometre's using one is quite impressive, it's not a good use for the sniper rifle or the dynamite.

>>162682
>Why code in a whole new type of account?
Because your name is inkwell.

>>162683
Mods job = Handle reports and such
Admins job = Site policy and shit
Owners job = Drink tequila
Dev's job = Mad scientist while drinking tequila.

>>162714
With the amount of times i've beat the modstaff over the head with the whole "Tell me if there is a problem with anything i do you fucking idiots" thing, i dont think there is a problem.

>>162721

>Satan, i've not 'taken away' anything.
>satan

wat

>>162712
Practical as in having the privileges that comes with the mod account.
Not a mod as in moderating. I think I made a bad job of separating the two.

>>162724
Devil trips I guess.