Re: Odin takes war to the Forums as a mod
Posted: Thu Jul 18, 2013 12:46 pm
He did not disregard the message. He did his over-the-top thing in replying to Odin, but did change his signature as asked.Haz wrote:You don't get to choose who mods you/your posts. If you think a mods actions are bias, you can report them. But that doesn't mean you can disregard said mods message.Guild wrote:no i didnt indicate i would mass him.... i said can a mod who isnt bias come to me
He did not ask for a 'mod who isn't biased when signature modding'. He asked for a 'mod who isn't biased'. Period.Haz wrote:And how are you to know if a mod is bias with signature based modding? That modding involves PMing the user(s). Naturally, you'd only see the PM sent to you. For all anyone knows, he could have sent a message regarding sigs to half of OE...
Odin and Guild are in a conflict together, and while both respect each other outside of that conflict (presumably), there is a small potential conflict of interest. Then again, knowing a little of Guild, he is at war with almost all current staff, so a great many would fall into that category.. right? *grin*
There is no merit in debating the why and wherefore. Odin and Guild have a conflict, ergo there is perceived bias. Whether or not there is any actual bias is immaterial, and since we know Odin to generally keep a somewhat level head, I believe we can dismiss the question of 'actual bias' and move straight to 'perceived bias'.
Addressing perceived bias is a wholly different matter from addressing actual bias. Actual bias would result in a scolding of the moderator in question, followed - if persistent - by firing. Perceived bias however is a completely other thing. One can perceive persecution where there is simply a guiding hand (of course, guiding hands can becoming grabbing hands all too easily if untempered by 'management', i.e. section heads).
Either way, the issue is moot. Moderators serve a higher purpose - their affiliations to alliances in game are secondary (and if not, their presence on the staff warrants revision) - and are held to a higher standard. However, they will not ignore broken rules because the people breaking the rules are either friends or foes. If we were to restrict moderators to only moderating people they have a neutral disposition towards, there would be no potential team (despite the clamour of 'non-caring', all have opinions about all).
So, since Guild amended his signature and therefore acted diligently at the request of Odin, and since there is no clear 'actual bias from Odin towards Guild in signature requests', why are we debating this issue?
- Guild did as he was asked, under protest (fine, he is at liberty to protest, and should not be attacked for the simple fact of protesting).
- Odin did his job as requested.
Instead of going round and round for the sake of messing with people instead of actually doing something useful, it only makes sense to acknowledge that (also tl;dr):
- there is perceived bias,
- that there is no actual bias in this matter,
- that Guild has the right to protest and
- that Odin did his job properly as requested.
](./images/smilies/eusa_wall.gif "Brick wall"){kind=small}
lmao, im saying he came to warn me for MY INGAME ACTIONS