STAR CHAMBER Q&A Thread

Does the Star Chamber have the authority to unilateriliy edit, delete, or close posts and threads, or must they get approval from the mods?

I know this question probably has been answered before, but this seems to be the appropriate thread, and I don't feel like slogging through the rest.

SC's got the pull to do all of that without anyone's approval.

STAR CHAMBER is endowed with both the authority and capability to unilaterally take action. There is a form for members of STAR CHAMBER to document said actions. Actions are sometimes discussed, affirmed, chastised, and agreed upon.

No STAR CHAMBER action goes unnoticed or undocumented. Members document actions under their own names.

Sometimes there is discussion pre-action. Sometimes not.

For example: The Jabba thread was controversial. That action is documented and is a representative example of how not to take action.

Nonetheless, actions stand.

STAR CHAMBER takes heat equally.

Why not allow yourselves the flexibility to say, "You know what, that was a hasty action" and undo it? As long as it wasn't done constantly, I don't think it would weaken the actions that do stand up.

I think it would be useful for Nick to explain here just why Star Chamber activity has to be anonymous. There was discussion of this in the admin forum, and Nick was adamant that anonymity is the way to go. Explaining why might put some minds at rest.

I believe that a Star Chamber member should have to consult with a mod before action is taken, except for the placement of threads in the appropriate forum.

Or a list of egregious offenses for which the post or thread may be unilateraly removed or edited.

Or perhaps one other Star Chamber member to sign off on such an action.

Star Chambers members ARE the mods.

Sorry, Blofield, I just edited my post to offer some possible alternative solutions while you were responding.

I guess we'll see how it goes.

I would like it very much if y'all would let me handle things in the Religion Forum. The topic closed this morning did not need to be closed--it needed to be led back on topic.

Thanks.

"I believe that a Star Chamber member should have to consult with a mod before action is taken, except for the placement of threads in the appropriate forum."

This would defeat the purpose, which is to take some of the load off Nick & some of the other mods.

Reqesting an explanation of this thread in Religion and why it was not warned at first or an attempt at redirection was made...

<a href="http://chud.com/board/ubbhtml/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=58;t=000103" target="_blank">http://chud.com/board/ubbhtml/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=58;t=000103</a>

As I only have the one forum to moderate, and spend nearly as much time on CHUD as the members of the ruling body, I dont think its too much to ask to be consulted before they take action in that particular forum.

Well, then, I guess I have a problem with the very concept of the Star Chamber.

hehehe...the topic in Religion was closed because apparently it's too much to ask of some people to make sense when they type out a post. &lt;sigh&gt; oh well...

It was closed with mucho class, as usual. I almost enjoy watching threads go bad so that I can see the clever ways in which they will get closed.

I am not sure why people are demanding that the Star Chamber peeps HAVE to do anything. People on this board made it so that a Star Chamber was necessary. Until the assholes get swept away, let them have at it! Better the Chamber than Nick having to intervene with some of these idiots 12 hours a day.

Why bother having other mods if the Star Chamber is just going to do whatever it wants in any forum.

And closing a thread over personal attacks or obscenity seems really stupid. I would think the real job of the SC would be step in and ask the participants to behave before taking drastic action.

I feel a "keep it civil and on subject" warning in that thread would have been more appropriate than completely shutting down over one post.

Scalpels, guys, not sledgehammers.

The religion thread controversy has been handled. It was a rash judgement and it won't happen again. From now on, there will be a warning shot into threads that have descended into personal attacks. Don't follow the warning and STAR CHAMBER can act as it pleases. That is all.

(edited to clarify)

Yeah, what Devin said.

The SC claimed they would first try to calm matters under their own accounts, but that didn't seem to happen in that thread.

I don't mind the SC taking action, but in a thread that could be salvaged, I think closing it early was harsh.

Thumbs up to that.

I personally wouldn't have closed that thread. The religion and politics forums especially are volatile by their nature. The poster was decidedly out of line, but I think a warning to take personal arguments to email or PM would've been in order. Closing a thread should be a last resort rather than an initial reaction.

But that's me.

And now this post is irrelevant.

(edited for irrelevance)

Again, Star Chamber agrees with all of you on this issue. It was a rash judgement. Give us a while to get the hang of this job... we are going to make some mistakes in the beginning... but we ARE ironing out the flaws in the system. Please bear with us. We are only human after all. I seriously believe that once we get the ball rolling on this sucker, CHUD will be a better place for it.

Exactly -- what function, if any, do the existing moderators have? And how much authority do they have left if any decision they make can be overridden by the Chamber?

The fact is this... the mods aren't always there. Star Chamber, on the other hand, is always there. If the mods were always there, always watching and always taking care of the forums... SC would not have been created.

We were chosen partly because combined there will always be at least two or three of us online at one time. The mods are not always online. The mods will have the same power they've always had... but Nick feels SC will help him out in handling message board concerns... and what Nick wants around here, Nick gets.

Why keep the mods around then? I mean, we can all assume Nick can come in and do whatever he wants, but if, by your own admission, the mods aren't up to the task, why even have a pretty much impotent, redundant level of management on the boards?

Besides, it would make the summary page look a lot slimmer.

I'm saying this, not as a member of the star chamber...because, quite frankly, I haven't had a chance to act, I've been too busy either doing rl work or catching up in the admin forum or reading the many threads about the star chamber...but as someone who watched the bickering and infighting take the boards in a downward spiral:
Apparently, there aren't enough of the mods that have had time to BE a mod.
Yes, there are going to be exceptions to this rule. There are a few boards that are lucky enough to have mods that are available to make sure they function smoothly. Hell, two of them I frequented because of this very reason, with the subject of the boards being a close second.
But something was obviously not working. The SC is comprised of many people, and part of that is so there can be better coverage...if they wind up being required to go through the mods before doing anything, we're back to square one.

You're probably right about that... but, it's not really my say or Star Chamber's say to get rid of them. That's up to Nick and Nick alone.

(edited to add the quote)

But why not make a policy that you have to get a sign off on an edit or deletion from at least one other Star Chamber member? Checks and balances, people.

Reiterating what Poxy said:

Why not put all the mods in the Star Chamber, seems rather silly to have both. Especially seeing what happened in the Religion forum.

Checks and balances are happening. That's why there's an admin forum, which Nick is involved in.

IMHO, the mods shouldn't disappear, for various reasons:
A) Those doing a great job shouldn't be screwed over by those who either don't have time or have otherwise wandered off.
B) Fedral Marshalls, the FBI, the Secret Service, and the ATF didn't replace the local cops.

Ok, people, look, you can't have it both ways. Pointing to one or two incidents and saying "SEE! BAD! IT'LL NEVER CHANGE!" and then not expecting Nick to point at one or two incidents (especially when he has many more than that) and go, "Fuck it. The boards are gone because you people can't learn nuthin.'" is a tad odd, don't you think?

I think that for people who find the anonymous nature of the SC troubling in and of itself, these incidents are just fulfilling what they expected to see.

And on a completely unrelated note...great sig, Devin.

There is no anonymous useage of the SC login. It may not be public domain, but it's not anonymous, and if it's abused, it'll be a race to see who lands on that person first, Nick or Mikah, with the rest of us getting the scraps.

It's anonymous to us.

Why not make some of the 'checks and balances' of the Star Chamber public?

Nick has views on that. When he checks in here, he will hopefully post them, per a previous request above.

And they're not anonymous to you Devin...you can yell at any one of us if there's a problem, and we can investigate it. What's more, if you knew who it was, the course of action would be the same as if you didn't...you'd either go to Nick or Mikah, or post about it.

I don't give a flying fuck who does what with STAR CHAMBER. Signing their posts would only lead to personal attacks against the one taking action. This would be a bigger problem then not knowing who took action.

Besides that that's not the whole point of STAR CHAMBER (god that's a horrible name). A checks and balance system is stupid, time consuming, and pointless. They just need a few basic rules that apply to certain scenarios.

Maybe they need standardized messages. Like "This thread contains personal threats. If these threats continue this thread will be closed. Thank You, STAR CHAMBER". Something they can cut and paste when deemed necessary.

Also as a general rule I think you should always warn first then take action.

After you've warned someone or some people there is no need to explain yourself after they then break the rule you warned them about.

Standard messages and warnings would be nice.

At this point, there's a troubling amount of repetition. But once again:

1) While you will know the members of the Star Chamber, you will not specifically know which one of us is acting at any given time. If you choose not heed my advice to take all issues with SC up with me and to treat every action under that banner as I have personally done it, then you won't be satisfied. Because this will not change.

2) Not one single decision we make will please everyone, and we certainly aren't going to merely defer to the most vocal Chewers. We serve all of you. That means the people that like the fact that we close argumentative threads, no questions asked. That means people that don't like the fact that we close argumentative threads, no questions asked. We'll make individual judgments according to the circumstances of the thread and our perceived severity of it. Most times, there'll be a warning, but occasionally, there won't be. The assumption you should make is that swift action will visit any thread gone awry. And yes, we decide when a thread has gone awry.

3) Any questions about current mods and/or the mod structure, placement, or privileges have NOTHING TO DO WITH US. Send those queries/complaints to Nick.

4) While I can appreciate individual input as to how other Chewers think the SC should conduct itself, please do not expect those suggestions to be implemented. We'll do our best according to our own individual judgement to carry out our duties as best we can. Expect nothing beyond that.

Since the STAR CHAMBER has admitted some mistakes, will SC rectify such mistakes? For example, unlocking Jabba's thread in Culture & Free Form, as well as the "If heaven exists" thread.

I am not saying that you should actually unlock them (for example, that thread in Religion already has a sequel, so there's no use to unlocking it). I am just curious whether you guys will do that (assuming you have that moderator ability).

As billylove has done, I will do so as well. Poxy did make a good point about the STAR CHAMBER and the assigned mods: Why not include the mods with the STAR CHAMBER? We're not talking "demotion" or "promotion" here, but a fair way to divide moderator rights/powers to EVERYONE. Look at Rath and his feelings with STAR CHAMBER. If Rath was part of the STAR CHAMBER, then this problem would have been alleviated.

[edited cuz I kant speak Engleesh]

We have nothing to do with pre-existing mod issues. Nothing.

We have the ability. But for the vast majority of the time, I'd say no further action would be taken once we've acted.

Alright, first of all, as this is a Q&A, you might find this question funny or just plain dumb (I feel like that reluctant Grade School student slowly raising his hand to ask the scary and strict teacher a question):

So there's a hierarchy then? The mods are just "local cops" while you guys are the higher-ups with more powers than the mods?

Not really. We have total authority and ability to mod anything on the boards. Questions regarding any other mods and their status have nothing to do with us. That's it.

I actually didn't mean that as a juristiction, more of a location. SC can operate in any forum, mods are assigned to local forums.

Also, as a side note to real life, the hierarchy most people seem to think exists in law enforcement is more of a tangled maze. Federal law enforcement is definately not "above" local law enforcement, like a colonel is above a seargent. Feds can get arrested by cops for breaking local laws (like, oh, say, jaywalking, if the local cop is willing to take the heat afterwards for the obvious screwing around with the fed), and the feds can only step in on very clear-cut lines. And that's the simplistic version, really.

Back to mods, personally, why should we assume they want to be SC? I can definately see where those mods who don't go "Oh, thank god, reinforcements!" might feel like we're slam dancing through their tulips, but why would just adding them to the SC make them feel better? There's still other SC members mosh pitting in their garden, and what's more, suddenly they go from being respected mods in comfortable shoes to having supiscious fingers pointed at them like they just slapped on a Gestapo uniform and got out the riding crop. What's more, as mods, they make decisions and do 'em, whereas as SC, they have paperwork and meetings and Q&A sessions and that once-every-1-days bathing-of-Uncle-Mitch....
Aside from being able to mod other forums, where's the plus side for them, there?

Here's an idea: Why not let the moderators of the forums that really DON'T need enforcement decide if they want the feds moshing in their garden, as you say?

Christ Rath, let it drop...it's not like you have to be a very active moderator in the Religion forum. Generally, the volume of posts there that might require someone to step in is very low. If you don't get to be the one that does it, is it really that big of a deal? No. If SC decides they want to shut down a thread in my RPG forum, it's their call. Remember, Nick has vested them with that job. Individual thread mods should just co-operate.

You'd be surprised how much active moderating I do in that forum. More than you'd suspect. There are a lot of hot button issues and threads that I watch closely there.

I have a distinct feeling that Nick would be really against pick and choose.
Firstly, it can't be done, code-wise.
Secondly, I'm under the impression (and that's all it was, an impression), that the implementation of a SC was a last ditch effort before Nick exploded and dropped the boards altogether before he went postal and took out a movie theater with a 40watt plasma rifle. So, yeah, there's probably going to be a bit of 'all or nothing', Keep-it-simple-stoopid air to things.

The simple fact of the matter is that we're all doing the same job. Yeah, if someone screws up in your forum and locks a post that should have been given leeway, you should have words about it. But, near as I figure, there's no hierarchy here. Have words with Mikah, straighten it out. Mikah's not going to lord over you like a Board Mod is some sort of lesser peon, sheesh.

And, as he keeps saying, the role of the mods on the board is not our say, we have nothing to do with it. It's Nick, pure and simple. But I know my own opinion is that I'm not treating mods any different than I have in the past.