Question: Policy on requests for information on suspensions

More
11 Feb 2019 20:13 #334041 by Kyrin Wyldstar

Manu wrote: I’ve worked in customer service, and under your logic, if I get a disgruntled, nasty customer, I should behave equally as nasty in return?



you are misunderstanding my logic. It is actually the opposite of what you just stated.

This guns for hire, even if we're just dancing in the dark.
My Journals: Kyrin-Wyldstar

Associate Degree of Divinity - Earned July, 2017
Apprenticed to: Alan, Senan, Mendalicious
Tribute to Senan: My Friend

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
11 Feb 2019 20:16 #334042 by Kobos
I think I see where you are going. But, can you explain that more in your words so I can get a better sense of what you mean?

Much Love, Respect and Peace,
Kobos

I met a strange lady, she made me nervous, she took me in and gave me breakfast. - Men at Work

You can act real rude and totally removed
And I can act like an imbecile- Men without hats

TM:JLSpinner
TB:Nakis

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
11 Feb 2019 20:29 - 11 Feb 2019 20:45 #334044 by Kyrin Wyldstar

Kobos wrote: I think I see where you are going. But, can you explain that more in your words so I can get a better sense of what you mean?

Much Love, Respect and Peace,
Kobos


That means that for a security officer, history is irrelevant. They should take each incident as an individual instance and never take into account past histories. Only council gets to take into account past histories when evaluating punishment if it comes to that. Beyond that in each instance the security officers paramount charge is to be nice, negotiate, treat the person they are dealing with as an equal. Ask, never demand, suggest, never dictate, take no action without agreement from the person they are dealing with. Often times the person they are dealing with will respond in kind and come up with their own solution to an infraction that the security officer can implement. Or they will agree to a suggestion that the security officer suggested. However there will be times that the person being dealt with will act nasty to the security officer. However this does not give the security officer license to act nasty back. The security officer must remain nice and be suggestive even if they are not getting that in kind. If a resolution cant be come to then the council must decide the course of action to resolve the situation. this action may not be one that is so nice, however that responsibility lies solely on the council and not the officer if it comes to that.

This guns for hire, even if we're just dancing in the dark.
My Journals: Kyrin-Wyldstar

Associate Degree of Divinity - Earned July, 2017
Apprenticed to: Alan, Senan, Mendalicious
Tribute to Senan: My Friend
Last edit: 11 Feb 2019 20:45 by Kyrin Wyldstar.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Kobos

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
11 Feb 2019 21:46 #334045 by Tellahane

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

Kobos wrote: I think I see where you are going. But, can you explain that more in your words so I can get a better sense of what you mean?

Much Love, Respect and Peace,
Kobos


That means that for a security officer, history is irrelevant. They should take each incident as an individual instance and never take into account past histories. Only council gets to take into account past histories when evaluating punishment if it comes to that. Beyond that in each instance the security officers paramount charge is to be nice, negotiate, treat the person they are dealing with as an equal. Ask, never demand, suggest, never dictate, take no action without agreement from the person they are dealing with. Often times the person they are dealing with will respond in kind and come up with their own solution to an infraction that the security officer can implement. Or they will agree to a suggestion that the security officer suggested. However there will be times that the person being dealt with will act nasty to the security officer. However this does not give the security officer license to act nasty back. The security officer must remain nice and be suggestive even if they are not getting that in kind. If a resolution cant be come to then the council must decide the course of action to resolve the situation. this action may not be one that is so nice, however that responsibility lies solely on the council and not the officer if it comes to that.


Why do you believe history should be irrelevant?
The following user(s) said Thank You: Kobos

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
11 Feb 2019 22:31 - 11 Feb 2019 22:53 #334046 by Kobos
I have to also ask that. Also, if history is irrelevant how does the security officer then act in accordance with each individual situation? Would a police officer not be concerned about previous events of parties involved when responding to one?

Is what you stated above a true to how you would treat the job? Like, really really ask yourself is this what you would do a T or is that the ideally how you would handle it?

Much Love, Respect and Peace

I met a strange lady, she made me nervous, she took me in and gave me breakfast. - Men at Work

You can act real rude and totally removed
And I can act like an imbecile- Men without hats

TM:JLSpinner
TB:Nakis
Last edit: 11 Feb 2019 22:53 by Kobos.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
11 Feb 2019 23:59 #334048 by Adder
Yin and Yang baby, its all qualitative and quantitative balancing to define boundaries in scopes, which we all go about labeling and identifying with as real, unreal, me, you, them, important, not important, weak, strong.... the duality of grey zone. I'm taking a trip on the 4th dimension actually being subjectivity at the moment (not instead of time, but as a different way to process the impact of time on self).... or maybe I'm watching too much Russian Doll in Netflix!

For me history is relevant in dealing with the person, but it is not relevant in assessing the nature of an infraction.

Maybe another case of a process having a quantitative attribute to the dynamic of actions which have qualitative attributes.... which in term create a new qualitative identity as a function of both the quantitative impact of the particular qualitative attributes in that particular system :silly:

Anyway, first coffee after 3 weeks without any...... back to the English language. I used to always (try to) take the approach in moderation sorta like;

1. first contact - explain rules, point out rules, ask & suggest edit/alteration to meet rules - assume ignorance.
2. 1st repeat - remind of 1., discuss possible disciplinary actions, ask & suggest edit/alteration to meet rules - assume forgetfulness.
3. 2nd repeat - indicate trend ask them to stop, , ask & suggest edit/alteration to meet rules - assume potential problem.
4. 3rd repeat - discuss disciplinary action, explain escalation process if they don''t stop - start talking to other mods & Council about watching out for problems.
5. 4th repeat - escalate problem to ppl with tools to deal with it.

But in reality its never the same problem being repeated, and other Mods etc will their own interactions as well, so is never as simple as that (not to suggest that its simple!).

Luckily as has been mentioned folk here are trying to work out a better system and maybe even find something we can adopt and publish eventually so everyone knows where everything is at.

Jou ~ Deg ~ Vlo ~ Sem ~ Mod ~ Med
TM: Grand Master Mark Anjuu
The following user(s) said Thank You: Kobos, Erinis

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
12 Feb 2019 00:19 - 12 Feb 2019 00:24 #334049 by Kyrin Wyldstar
I did not say that history was irrelevant. I said it was irrelevant for the security officer or anyone acting in that capacity. That judgment of history is reserved for the council. This creates a natural checks and balances of power. Individuals can have temper flares, personality conflicts, knee jerk reactions when dealing with others. In these cases the one with the greatest power (to ban or sensor) will always win, whether they were right or not. But take that same conflict and place it before an objective board. The results are often quite different.

This minimizes unilateral decisions made during heightened emotions by security officers. It stops "rodney king" Incidents. Incidents such as has happened to me. A single Individual banning me for no other reason than somebody complained to him it would be me or them. That sort of favoritism would be ended.

It's a proven system that works extremely well. It takes into account not only the history of the poster but the security officer as well and any indescressions they have had in the past

This guns for hire, even if we're just dancing in the dark.
My Journals: Kyrin-Wyldstar

Associate Degree of Divinity - Earned July, 2017
Apprenticed to: Alan, Senan, Mendalicious
Tribute to Senan: My Friend
Last edit: 12 Feb 2019 00:24 by Kyrin Wyldstar.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Kobos, ZealotX

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
12 Feb 2019 00:53 #334051 by Adder
Suspensions and bannings by one person without discussion or votes etc is not normal practice unless its egregious, like spam or threats etc... or executive action by an admin. And the later is way outside the scope of moderation or even Security Officers. I imagine the idea of having a published policy is so that stuff does not happen anymore.

And I think only admins can ban people, and so that is like 2 or 3 people, sometimes 4 from memory depending on ren. AFAIK it is usually only ren, Br John, and sometimes the VP Member Affairs... who have those admin powers. Everything else is just normal forum moderation stuff, in the lead up to disciplinary actions, which is where the bulk of any policy would be aimed at, with the banning being the end of a process designed to avoid it unless deemed absolutely necessary for the Temple's function.
IMO, just talking tho..

Jou ~ Deg ~ Vlo ~ Sem ~ Mod ~ Med
TM: Grand Master Mark Anjuu
The following user(s) said Thank You: Kobos

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
12 Feb 2019 01:01 #334052 by Tellahane
Anyone with a bright red name has the access to the ban feature.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Adder, Kobos

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
12 Feb 2019 02:15 #334057 by Kobos

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: I did not say that history was irrelevant. I said it was irrelevant for the security officer or anyone acting in that capacity. That judgment of history is reserved for the council. This creates a natural checks and balances of power. Individuals can have temper flares, personality conflicts, knee jerk reactions when dealing with others. In these cases the one with the greatest power (to ban or sensor) will always win, whether they were right or not. But take that same conflict and place it before an objective board. The results are often quite different.

This minimizes unilateral decisions made during heightened emotions by security officers. It stops "rodney king" Incidents. Incidents such as has happened to me. A single Individual banning me for no other reason than somebody complained to him it would be me or them. That sort of favoritism would be ended.

It's a proven system that works extremely well. It takes into account not only the history of the poster but the security officer as well and any indescressions they have had in the past


That makes sense, now that said (thank you Kryin). We know that there is no way to bring up even a decent sized voting body in the time that a thread can blow up here. Right? So, should a peace officer use a short ban as a deterrent to defuse until a situation (particularly if a complaint is made and the officer has read the material it came from) can be brought before a voting body or second admin?

I will say using rodney king as an example is a little extreme and you can express yourself more meaningfully than than shock value, I know that from our other discussions.

Now again I don't know the in and outs here and haven't studied all that much into the temples policy, but I feel this (though kind of crappy) seems to be the best way to do it. For example, thread freezes, is brought up between officers or a voting body then either reopened or was split based on it's content. Is this the logical progression this should follow? Honestly asking, I don't really know how organizationally and message board wise this should be considered. You all have more experience in that then I do.

Much Love, Respect and Peace,
Kobos

I met a strange lady, she made me nervous, she took me in and gave me breakfast. - Men at Work

You can act real rude and totally removed
And I can act like an imbecile- Men without hats

TM:JLSpinner
TB:Nakis

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.