As I understand it that's true about the software package. I'm not sure what Fasces revealed though. I am NOT asking a question, so please NOBODY answer it :-)

From Fasces's profile:

"Banned by a moderator: Revealing Admin Tool Functionality (automatic ban for all former mods)"

So why did they ban ALL former mods? That must be a REALLY serious infraction.

Couldn't resist. sorry....

@semck, every moderator on both our site, and vDip is allowed to join the team only with the promise that they will never abuse their moderator power during or after their tenure as a moderator.

Ignoring the fact that 90+% of our users probably couldn't set it up due to lacking resources or knowledge (I'm working on setting up a test environment for site improvements and it isn't as easy as you think), the fact is that members need to have absolute faith that no moderator will ever abuse their knowledge gained through moderating. Doing so is the single worst offense possible, and completely unacceptable.

To expand, the vDip team handed us proof that the revelation was done with the foreknowledge and understanding that revealing this information could and probably would hurt both WebDiplomacy and VDiplomacy. This offense is considered so severe that the vDip mods have banned him from ever rejoining their team despite his history of helping their site.

I cannot stress how much of a problem that type of revelation could cause to both sites and how unacceptable it is. This falls on the same level as maliciously attacking the site and will never be tolerated.

Point #1

Using information available on the internet, anyone could learn how to make a functioning pipe-bomb.

If I were to teach someone how to make a pipe bomb, and they go on to make a pipe bomb and injure or kill innocent people, wouldn't you hold me at least partly responsible?


Point #2

In the past when Fasces was a moderator, he agreed to abide by a set of rules for moderators. This particular rule, which he has now broken, remains in force even when you are no longer a mod. He knew this, and he broke the rule to which he had previously promised to abide.

I have no sympathy for him. He is lying in the bed which he has made.

Also, what jmo said (while I was typing)

That was some Newspeak right there.

Sorry JMO, that's always been a silly and laughable stance by the mods, but till now it's just been silly and laughable. Now it's stupid and offensive.

Putting software on the internet for anybody to download and then banning members for describing it is indefensible.

Indeed. I originally questioned this decision but as there is evidence he did it deliberately, and they are of course warned when they first become mods, I think it's difficult to defend him now. Dealing with leaks is a nightmare for mods and admins on any site.

The entire thing seems to be complete mob rule vs. totalitarian (not really, but the possibility of it) terms.

I can't support the "Hey I like that guy bring him back!" side of things. Then whomever makes the biggest scene is pretty much untouchable and can do whatever they like. Why have rules at all if that is the case. I like Dragnaur, but if he's repeatedly breaking the rules and making life miserable for the site management. Then they had a right to ban him; especially after many warnings.


On the other hand, If you are going to have rules, post them. I know its a pain & people being who they are will look at them with an eye toward exploiting them. Still though, If people don't know all of the rules; then how can they be expected to follow them?

@semck, this will always be the case, and no member will ever join a mod team without agreeing to this. This is the case with nearly every site with a moderator team. Your position is just ignorant. This rule is absolute and non-negotiable.

What are you on about, CA?

Fasces was perfectly aware of the rule which he broke.

@Crazy Anglican

While I totally agree about the posting of clear rules, Fasces knew what he was doing and should be punished accordingly.

JMO,

Actually, mod teams using (for example) phpBB rarely, if ever, have to make a promise not to reveal the mod features of phpBB. That would be too obviously stupid.

I'm not objecting to having a rule forbidding mods from sharing mod secrets. I'm pointing out that this is not a mod secret, however much you may insist otherwise.

@ Jamie and HR

If I came off as supporting Fasces, it was unintentional as I don't know enough about it. I think I said so. Sounds like he knowingly broke a serious rule of the mod community, so okay.

I was more commenting on the two sides of the argument. Every time a frequent forum contributor gets banned there is a couple of days of uproar, as if yelling and complaining will do anything.

I do think the call for clear rules is a reasonable, since we're going to have to abide by them anyway.

@Semck

He agreed to bide by this rule and he deliberately broke this rule. That's all there is to it.

@CA

Fair enough, I agree then.

@semck, you are wasting your time on this matter. This is inexcusable, confirmed unanimously by the mod teams on 2 sites, as well as their site owners. You do not and never will have any say in this matter, so leave it alone.

If we cannot trust a former mod to uphold one part of the promise we made we cannot trust him to uphold any other part, such as not revealing member personal information. We will never tolerate a current or former mod or admin who violations the most important rule of the moderator team.

Conversation over.

Please don't DDoS the site, semck.

@Hellenic Riot,

Incorrect. He agreed not to reveal mod secrets. That is not reasonably interpreted as a mod secret. People are allowed to disagree with stupid interpretations of rules they have agreed to.

@jmo,

It is usually clear to me after conversing with you about site policty that I am wasting my time, I agree. Not always, though, so I keep doing it.

@Jamie,

I never would.

@Semck

As he's been confirmed to have done it deliberately, I don't think he can then argue against those interpretations. You can't say you're going to set fire to something, set fire to something, then claim it was an accident.

Hellenic,

I haven't seen the evidence, but I imagine that he disagreed with the INTERPRETATION, not the happening of the action. You can disagree with whether setting fire to some leaves in your yard is terrorism, even if you admit that you deliberately set the fire.

Fasces had mocked this interpretation before, as had anybody who took the time to understand the issue. I don't doubt that he deliberately shared the information, but I dissent that he was breaking the rule he agreed to.

semck, you're arguing semantics here. The fact that its open sourced is beyond the point. The fact that you think the rule is stupid is irrelevant, because Fasces agreed not to share mod tool information and knew what the consequences would be. Its like signing a contract and then declaring it void because you think a clause is stupid.

Well, goldfinger, if it's stupid enough, that often works.

In any event, I can't say exactly what Fasces would argue, because I haven't talked to him; and I only know what jmo posted of the mod rules, and that did not include anything that should lead to a banning in this circumstance.

What concerns me most here is the climate of zero tolerance without the least shred of awareness of circumstance. For example, jmo argues that (to paraphrase) "if he did this, we couldn't trust him not to reveal real secrets." That's ridiculous, and just the kind of thing that people always use to justify stupid zero-tolerance policies. Fasces had mocked this policy for a long time, and rightly so. I just don't buy that, even if this was a violation worthy of punishment, it had to be a ban. But that's all that a zero-tolerance mentality understands.

@semck
"I haven't seen the evidence, but I imagine"
With all respect, as soon as you say this, the credibility of your complaint disappears. It really does.

Smoker,

Not really. Fasces has actually made essentially the argument before, so I'm just projecting his past words. When dealing with someone who has and used the power to delete and silence what Fasces actually said or would say, I think it is eminently reasonable to supply the banned player with the best arguments we think he would have used.

In particular, I was responding in this instance to Hellenic Riot, who himself was proferring a conjectured set of facts for which he also didn't have evidence. I was supplying an alternate set of facts.

semck,

The nature of this ban kinda procludes itself from offering evidence to the community. If I were to write a post saying, "Hey everyone! Did you know that the mods have the capability to see x?" I would expect to be banned shortly, followed by an email from them saying how very disappointed they were with me.

The nature of the job necessitates a climate of zero tolerance. The slightest indication of an abuse of power will have reprimands and consequences. Mods have been forced to resign for infractions. Jmo was forbidden from moderating the forum after last autumn's debacle. We self-moderate each other and it works. All we ask from the community is to have faith in our decisions in cases such as this where we cannot, for the good of the site, disclose information about it.

@goldfinger,

I understand why evidence wasn't given, and didn't mean to complain on that point. I was just clarifying to Smoker why my supposition was no less credible than Riot's.

"Jmo was forbidden from moderating the forum after last autumn's debacle."

Yeah.

Why did that end, again?

Well, I'm going with what the mods said. I choose to believe they wouldn't lie to my face as I've not seen any evidence that they have ever done so.