I feel like it's unfair that you can't block moderators because what if they are giving you false warnings and keep messaging and picking on you! What are you suppose to do? Some mods are trolls, it's unfair to some users, like when you send an email to OS, they don't respond, well most of the time they don't.

Question

bibby · Answer

http://openstudy.com/study#/updates/53f032b7e4b0f30a87d89bf7

dan815 · Answer

You need to fight the law with LAW please read http://openstudy.com/code-of-conduct http://openstudy.com/terms-and-conditions http://openstudy.com/privacy-policy Know your rights, equip yourself with the law. No one is above the law.

anonymous · Answer

You are spamming! This post isn't about age nor "laws" It's specifically about moderators and blocking. Stay on topic. If not then get off my question, ty.

anonymous · Answer

Jess, did you have a bad break-up with one of the moderators?

anonymous · Answer

Yes, how did you know?

anonymous · Answer

It's okay because now surely because of this post.. The moderators and admins will care!!!!!

anonymous · Answer

True!

the_fizicx99 · Answer

"It's okay because now surely because of this post.. The moderators and admins will care!!!!!" I wonder how many people believe this is true :3

tester97 · Answer

I believe this is tru @tHe_FiZiCx99

abhisar · Answer

@Jesstho.-. may be you should try discussing this with preetha

anonymous · Answer

@Abhisar
 Thanks, I will.

abhisar · Answer

$\rlap{\color{blue}{\huge\bigstar}\huge \color{blue}{ \text{You're Most Welcome!  }}\color{blue}\bigstar}{\; \color{aqua}{\huge\bigstar}\huge \color{aqua}{\text{You're Most Welcome!  }}\color{aqua}\bigstar}$
$~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\color{green}{\huge\ddot\smile}\color{blue}{\huge\ddot\smile}\color{pink}{\huge\ddot\smile}\color{red}{\huge\ddot\smile}\color{yellow}{\huge\ddot\smile}$

the_fizicx99 · Answer

"Peter pan" How long was the handle?

the_fizicx99 · Answer

:O

anonymous · Answer

ikr

tester97 · Answer

two happies at the same times what? :o http://prntscr.com/4fvnaz

abhisar · Answer

actually one happy just got banned !

abhisar · Answer

@happyfaces @happynigga chatbox is the best place for conversations like these

tester97 · Answer

All the happy's eventually get banned its just a matter of time xD

abhisar · Answer

i wonder how much free time you have !

mokeira · Answer

I have been a victim of the same @Jesstho.-.

e.mccormick · Answer

The reason nobody can block moderators is simple: It is the duty of moderators to explain the rules to people.  That is impossible if people just block you. If a moderator is discussing rules, making suggestions as to your conduct, etc. it is not seen as harassment or abuse of their power.  However, if they are making improper advances, helping people cheat, or threatening people for no valid reason (you don't break the rules and they just don't like you) it is a violation.

All complaints against moderators need to go to: abuse@openstudy.com 

They get investigated by the admins.  Admins can see anything, all messages, all chats, all posts, deleted or not.  So it is very much something they can look into.

No moderator that is simply a moderator sees abuse@openstudy.com emails.  They are read by a particular admin that either replies to it (for things like I was suspended, why!) or passes it up the chain (for more complex issues.)

e.mccormick · Answer

And as for @bibby 's claims, they are incorrect.  I know of two moderators that were removed from the site for abuse.  One that predates me, one that does not.  This is because the accusations sent in to abuse@ were substantiated.  Also, the claim we are like police is incorrect.  Moderators are police, judge, jury, and executioner.  So the authority is wider ranging than just police, but still very much accountable to the admins.

And while we may not argue on OpenStudy, we do have a private location where we discuss thing.  We do not `100% agree on things.  There is just a general consensus and most moderators are chosen based on admin and moderator agreement that someone would fit in with that general consensus.

anonymous · Answer

Eric Mcnasty is the only mod I don't hate.  I guess we'd have to listen to him.

shamil98 · Answer

"police, judge,jury, and executioner"
JUDGE DREDD reference much? xD

e.mccormick · Answer

Not really, but it is analogous.  The Judge Dredd Judges are accountable to the SJS and the Chief Judge.

anonymous · Answer

"The reason nobody can block moderators is simple: It is the duty of moderators to explain the rules to people.  That is impossible if people just block you. If a moderator is discussing rules, making suggestions as to your conduct, etc. it is not seen as harassment or abuse of their power.However, if they are making improper advances, helping people cheat, or threatening people for no valid reason (you don't break the rules and they just don't like you) it is a violation.  "

I agree with above statement since it is reasonable. 



"All complaints against moderators need to go to: abuse@openstudy.com 

They get investigated by the admins.  Admins can see anything, all messages, all chats, all posts, deleted or not.  So it is very much something they can look into.

No moderator that is simply a moderator sees abuse@openstudy.com emails.  They are read by a particular admin that either replies to it (for things like I was suspended, why!) or passes it up the chain (for more complex issues.)"

This is a lie. This email is seldom responsive. It is simply an outlet to direct complaints to  an unmonitored email. 


"And as for @bibby 's claims, they are incorrect.  I know of two moderators that were removed from the site for abuse.  One that predates me, one that does not.  This is because the accusations sent in to abuse@ were substantiated."

Yes, I know two moderator were removed from the post. Were they removed because of complaints from user or because they disagree with admins on issues?

  "Also, the claim we are like police is incorrect.  Moderators are police, judge, jury, and executioner.  So the authority is wider ranging than just police, but still very much accountable to the admins."

Oh slow down there. Don't overstretch your boundaries. No you are not police. No, you are not judge; no, you are not jury , and finally no ,you are not executioner.  

And while we may not argue on OpenStudy, we do have a private location where we discuss thing.  We do not `100% agree on things.  There is just a general consensus and most moderators are chosen based on admin and moderator agreement that someone would fit in with that general consensus.

anonymous · Answer

Also there are many "fake moderators".   Many moderators accounts are being used by multiple people to their own benefit.  So to original question about "moderator being troll" may not be far off.

bibby · Answer

openstudy conspiracies

e.mccormick · Answer

"Oh slow down there. Don't overstretch your boundaries. No you are not police. No, you are not judge; no, you are not jury , and finally no ,you are not executioner. "

As far as OpenStudy is concerned, we are.  We do not make the rules of OpenStudy.  However, we are on the lookout for people that break them.  When we find them, we decide their guilt and punishment.  


"Also there are many 'fake moderators'. Many moderators accounts are being used by multiple people to their own benefit. So to original question about 'moderator being troll' may not be far off."

Oh?  What moderators are being used by other people?  When?

anonymous · Answer

Also a lot of moderator think they are smart when confronted by about issue about free speech and first amendment. Their typical response is 
" first amendment is by the government , we are private entity"
To kids here , this was same rational used by diner in south during Jim crow era to deny rights to certain people.

e.mccormick · Answer

Um, have you read the amendment you are talking about?  Ever talked to a lawyer about it?  You might want to get some legal advice because if you think free speech applies on private web sites, you are very wrong.

anonymous · Answer

so it doesn't also apply to private diner? Nice talking to you , George Wallace

e.mccormick · Answer

Um, you might look a little deeper into the history of George Wallace before you compare someone to him.  See, there are many blacks that have commented that he actually improved their life in Alabama.  Now, what he said and did to get into office was exceptionally offensive, but his actions in office were very even handed in comparison to the KKK member he replaced.

anonymous · Answer

See kids . This right there is called diversion. People do that when they have no counter arguments.

bibby · Answer

Smells like a red herring

e.mccormick · Answer

Yes, you did diversion.  You brought up Wallace and used him incorrectly.

anonymous · Answer

You are a good boy. Stay in school

e.mccormick · Answer

Now you are calling me a boy?  LOL.  Ad hominem.  Your argumentation skills are in need of some work.

anonymous · Answer

You are too stupid to argue

e.mccormick · Answer

And do you know the Code of Conduct?

anonymous · Answer

I do and there are several non compliance with state and federal law. It is written like school rules with no regard to actual law

e.mccormick · Answer

Then why are you doing personal attacks?  Why are you breaking rules?

As for how it relates to law: you really need to talk to a law professor.  Your personal claim of expertise is very easy to disprove.  You don't even know the basic limits of free speech law.

e.mccormick · Answer

Here, read up some: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/95-815.pdf

e.mccormick · Answer

Or here... another little example: http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-08-03/where-free-speech-goes-to-die-the-workplace

anonymous · Answer

if you are basing your argument on this short literature, then I am afraid arguing with you is unproductive. Law is broad and far reaching. Nothing is clear cut. There are complication if private property in question is either partially or fully funded by government. if said organization is granted tax free status. Then some exception applies. There is also matter of  balance between civil right and civil liberties that must be taken into account. You can't make yourself expert by reading an pdf  and thinking you are some kind of law expert. It is laughable and frankly cute to us

anonymous · Answer

great ,business week is legal scholar now?

e.mccormick · Answer

Oh no, I never claimed to have a law degree.  I have only suggested you look to someone that does have one when you contradict a document that has been reviewed by the people Inquus  hired.

And even with government funding, there are still all the limits government can place on free speech that do apply.  For example, hate speech and obscenity are two of the many things government is completely free to restrict.

And Business Week quoted "Mark Trapp, an employment lawyer with Epstein Baker Green in Chicago."  So no, they are not "is legal scholar."  They just consulted one.

anonymous · Answer

"Oh no, I never claimed to have a law degree.  I have only suggested you look to someone that does have one when you contradict a document that has been reviewed by the people Inquus  hired."

That doesn't mean anything. This was written to protect themselves from liability. Doesn't mean ,  right of user are not violated.  Many times, during legal proceeding, court would throw out "term of condition" on the ground of not being compliant. I am intellectual property associate.

"And Business Week quoted "Mark Trapp, an employment lawyer with Epstein Baker Green in Chicago."  So no, they are not "is legal scholar."  They just consulted one. " 

Correct, they consulted a lawyer who gave his opinion. In rules of law, opinions are debated in court.  Just because certain Mark Trapps says , doesn't make it true

e.mccormick · Answer

Yes, the courts have thrown parts of a terms of service out.  However, they have also convicted people of violating the CFAA for breaking a terms of service agreement, especially in cases where avoiding login restrictions has been done.

And as for the opinion of a lawyer not being true, you have just proven your own argument invalid.  You have just concluded that everything you have said is only opinion and not necessarily true.  The only way to determine the truth, according to what you said, is to have someone sue Inquus and have the assorted tems and conditions and so on evaluated in court.

anonymous · Answer

Thats the point. There is no "true" in court. It is not black and white; law is the world of gray. Even court decision can be overturned or superseded . I didn't not contradict anything as I was not the one who claimed to be a judge. All I said was provide my professional legal opinion . I am no interest to pursue this in court as I have other cases to resolve. My experience tell me there are no true private entity as there can be required compliances based on government incentive. Which sounds troubling anytime you drone start regurgitation same line over and over again

e.mccormick · Answer

As I clarified before, my comment on Moderators being judges is only in the application of the CoC, ToS, etc.  As for a discussion of law, I too have not claimed to be a judge.  So saying, "as I was not the one who claimed to be a judge" is an incorrect statement because it implies that I have.

anonymous · Answer

no it doesn't. All I said was I didn't

e.mccormick · Answer

"I was not the one" means that someone else was "the one."  It confirms the existence of "the one" while denying being it.  If you had said "I am not one who has..." it would not necessarily confirm the existence of "the one."  If you had said, "I have not claimed..." it would very clearly just apply to you and have no implication for any other.

anonymous · Answer

yes, but it doesn't automatically apply to you , unless you are reaching

e.mccormick · Answer

We are the two people discussing things here, at this time, and nobody else but we two have brought up judges.  How is there any reach in that?

anonymous · Answer

I didn't name you explicitly and "the one" was blanket term used to describe many poeple whether or not they were in this converasation. I don't remember saying " in this conversation" to limit my scope .  As for your statement about you not claiming to be a judge , you have been known to make statement as if you were one

e.mccormick · Answer

Statements in what respect?  How the ToC and CoC are applied on OpenStudy?  Well, in those respects, I am a judge.  What moderators say about the rules of the site is correct unless contradicted by the administration.  If you wish to check that, ask Preetha about how she supports the moderators.  I could probably find a post on it by her.  I know I can find it in email.  Statements in the applicability of law?  Well, in those respects, how are my arguments any different than your arguments?

Also, you have made vague accusations that moderator accounts are being abused by being shared.  I am still waiting for more information on that if you want to share it here, or you could send your concerns to the contact address.  I know there were some hackers using scripts to grab cookies, so it is possible that someone did access a moderator account at some point.  There were also password attacks done on a number of accounts, so that is also possible.  However, what you said made it seem like it was some voluntary sharing and not an attack being done against the moderators.  That, as far as I know, would get moderator status revoked.  There is a huge difference between some attacker nefariously gaining access and a moderator voluntarily sharing a power with others that is not theirs to grant or share.

anonymous · Answer

starbucks anyone..

e.mccormick · Answer

Ew.  Please, no.  Keep it away.

anonymous · Answer

but why..

e.mccormick · Answer

Because I like coffee.

compassionate · Answer

Take you blasphemy somewhere else, Eric.

anonymous · Answer

i love coffee.

e.mccormick · Answer

GooD!  Now, what Starbucks does to coffee, that is sacralegious.

anonymous · Answer

starbucks is amazing.

compassionate · Answer

\ban;user={e.mccormick}

e.mccormick · Answer

Stabucks is burnt beans that have been masked by overloading things with sugar.  If you like coffee, you take it with nothing in it and see how it is first.

anonymous · Answer

starbucks is yummy.

e.mccormick · Answer

That is the sugar.

compassionate · Answer

Please, tell us about your master race coffee, Das Fuhrer, Eric, von die Third Reich.

anonymous · Answer

i like sugar. @iambatman ;)

e.mccormick · Answer

Well, for a good all around there is Community Coffee Dark Roast.

compassionate · Answer

Seed Heil! Masterrace is the Dark Roasted Coffee. Das Fuhrer has spoken.

e.mccormick · Answer

Though I am not fond of the most expensive coffee.  I just don't go for things that have been eaten by another critter first.  Something about poo coffee just does not sit right with me.

bibby · Answer

This conversation is like the Polmont rail accident in the UK in 1984 in that it's been derailed

e.mccormick · Answer

More like Andrews' Raid in 1862.

e.mccormick · Answer

When I became a moderator, actually even before it, I did some research on what moderators do, how they are supported by the admins, etc.  After becoming one I got access to the internal rules document for moderators.  Yes, we have and follow rules.  While this document is not available to users, there is a huge volume of things about moderators on the site.  Not my info, but actual administration comments on moderators, their duties, how to react to them, and so on.

The below can all be found on OpenStudy if you wish to see their full context.  I have done by best to only select things that are clear in their meaning outside of the posts they were taken from.  As in, you can see how they apply to anything.

Preetha, the CEO and top Admin, on how moderators are selected, "As I have always said, we reserve the right to select the mods with our criteria."

cshalvey, one of the founders of OS, on fight type arguments, "this argument is OVER. So, you can proceed to act appropriately on OpenStudy (which involves NOT arguing in questions, chats, or messages) - or you can choose to let me make a decision on how to end this. Ultimately, I can assure you there will be no more of this behavior - especially in the Feedback group. So, thank you both for your acceptance of this resolution!"

shadowfiend, an admin... 

...on the job of moderators, "I already covered this in the other thread. Ambassadors are here to welcome and guide, moderators are here to do the same in addition to managing Code of Conduct violations."

...on the fact that admin regulates moderators, "That said, we do hold our moderators to our own standards, and we've had to remove moderators a very limited number of times due to misbehavior."

...on what to do with a complaint, "What we have always said, however, is that if you have a problem with moderator decisions, you email abuse@openstudy.com ."

...on how moderators interpret the rules, "Moderators and admins exist precisely to judge how the rules apply, much like members of the justice system in most structured societies. There is a group of us so that we can act as a check on each other."

...on how moderators regulate each other "I do see that another moderator reasonably quickly reduced the length of the suspension. So in this case I see the system working exactly as it's meant to, with moderators acting as a check on each other."

...talking about the CoC and items defined in it, "The judgement call on what fits these is up to the moderators and, ultimately, us admins."

...on how the site is run, "I'm not really interested in discussing the way our policies work any further. Ultimately, it is a dictatorship, simply one where we choose to pay attention to the feedback our users give us."

...in reply to someone that kept using the forums to complain about moderators, "In the meantime, it would be awesome if your default assumption were not that the moderators are out to get you. That attitude is getting old and is starting to seriously get on my nerves. We are here to help, but we are not perfect. Instead of being defensive and abrasive about your complaints, try being polite and constructive when communicating with moderators. You'll find we respond far better."

...in reply to someone that called OS policy censorship and so on , "no." and "But you can feel free to take your attitude elsewhere." and " Your previous question was, as pointed out there, closed because of your condescending attitude. You can either change that attitude, or take it elsewhere. Which of the two you do is your choice. I have consistently shown little patience for condescension and bad attitude, no matter whose post I'm dealing with. To decide that it's personal simply shows you haven't been paying attention to my broader interactions on this site. Which is fine, there's no reason for you to do so. However, it means you have no data to base your accusations on, making them, in the common parlance, baseless."

...on moderator complaints, "our choices of moderators are not up for debate unless they abuse their power or grossly misapply the code of conduct. They're certainly not up for debate until said moderators have gotten a chance to actually learn the ropes."

...on dealing with moderators, "The moderators should be treated with respect, even if you disagree with them, just as with every other user on this site. Complaints about the moderators should go directly to us, the admins, via the abuse or contact emails. That is all."

farmdawgnation, an admin,... 

...on the appropreatness levels for content allowed on the site, "We operate on the policy of the least common denominator, which in this case is would be moderately conservative parents of children with ages between 13 (the youngest age for a student to legally use our site under COPPA) and 18 (the age at which most kids go to college and their parent's ideas of appropriate become a less relevant factor to what websites they are able to use). We aim to keep the content on this site of the caliber that those group of individuals would fine appropriate."

...on the CoC "The Code of Conduct isn't a comprehensive list. It never has been intended for that. Rather, it's a set of guidelines. In places where our interpretation and yours don't line up, we intervene - first with DM's / replies, then with official warnings, then with suspensions. We don't drop the banhammer as a first resort unless someone is obviously trolling. Regardless, no matter how we phrase the CoC, there are always going to be people complaining about abuse of power. Nobody likes being told they're doing something wrong."

...on dealing with moderator abuse, "If we see an issue with moderator behavior, it will be dealt with in private with that moderator one-on-one. I see no reason for us to address that in public, in a study group no less. Just creates drama."

e.mccormick · Answer

And, if you look up the originals, you will see that many admin comments came out of fight type arguments by users.  In fact, you can see present user's names on some of these old fight type arguments, discussions, etc.  Please remember that these users are not the same person they were at the moment when they were fighting admins.

Other discussions are less combative and more philosophical.  We prefer it if things are like that.

bibby · Answer

It's hard to, like, philosophize man. Especially when people like tkhunny get to be the judge, jury, and executioner.

The warnings and suspensions I get for "spam" are a joke.

e.mccormick · Answer

Micro suspensions are a good thing.  They help slow down the spam.

bibby · Answer

Microsuspensions in my case are anywhere between 1, 5 and 24 hours. I know that if I email abuse@openstudy.com I won't get a response in time. I know that he's never going to have to justify the leap from 
```
Even if you think it's hilarious. Don't spam the site. Generally, don't threaten to kill people, either.

(actually understandable, but I didn't spam the site.)
```
to
```
You were suspended for the following reason: 
At first, I thought you were just spamming. After other complaints, I read more carefully.
 Don't do that. Come back with a better attitude.
```

Whatever. This conversation is fruitless and cyclical.

shadowlegendx · Answer

I just wanted to come by and say hi to everybody :)

e.mccormick · Answer

Hi SLX.

shadowlegendx · Answer

Sup Eric, who you doing man?

bibby · Answer

Soliciting personal information and talking about adult activities like s*x is against the CoC http://openstudy.com/code-of-conduct

e.mccormick · Answer

Um... his initials are against the CoC?  Since when?

bibby · Answer

That was directed at SLX. the censored word was sex. Please do not suspend me for using bad words

e.mccormick · Answer

Shadow
Legend
X

SLX.  I mean, I could understand if I had said something about his cute kitty and people took it the wrong way... but SLX?

bibby · Answer

Classic misdirection mr mccormick. SLX was asking you questions as to your personal dating life and violating several bullet points in my personal bible, the code of conduct. I just want to see the swift hand of the law strike down.

e.mccormick · Answer

Um.  No.  It is for me to strike or not as I see fit.  For example, when imranmeah91 was doing personal attacks rather than discuss things, I could easily have suspended him.  Admins have done so before and commented that this is justified.  It is even in the things I quoted.  But I decided not to in the hope that I could bring imranmeah91 around to discussing things rather than their ad hominem attacks.

bibby · Answer

You're implying I actually read anything posted in the past few hours in this thread. :)

e.mccormick · Answer

No, I am just making an example you can reference if you want.

solomonzelman · Answer

There were times when I got suspended unfairly i.e. that when I didn't violate the http://openstudy.com/code-of-conduct , and I used to get false warnings too so I can feel the poster in a way:) I've seen some mods troll, but that's not like a big time troll anyway, just little joke.... in general they do a significant fraction of their job. (I mean more than about a zero).

solomonzelman · Answer

More and more people are becoming moderators, so I would expect that in a year from now, almost everyone will be a moderator. IT will be like a huge corporation, with 10 watch-overs (or whatever they are called) per worker.

compassionate · Answer

Solomon, what do you man everyone is becoming moderators? There have been four new moderators this year, according to the Federal Bureau of Statistics and Logistics from Compassionate's Mind. There are about sixty moderators (correct me if I'm wrong) and only 1/3 of them are active. We have old moderators that had to leave, or just went away to college, and they are no longer activate.