Regarding the proposal, I think it slightly conceited to imagine I would think of everything, and thusly if a mod would be so kind as to open an "official" thread in an appropriate location - I would readily contribute towards some crowdsourced proposal for "fixes" to policies and procedures. By "fixes" I mean actually lay some out that people can see, and fully define scope and range. I would draw heavily from comments made in here and other places I've noted. Ultimately it shouldn't be too different to what you're already used to, in terms of execution. Just less fractured, and more transparent. Moderator input would be appreciated, as this should result in something you feel it's possible to actually conform to. Collaborational tools would be wonderful about here, another topic but they can streamline production. Considerably. Forums are good, for randomly shouting ideas. It should be(eventually will be) a single toy in the toolbox... Collaborational tools should be the next logical toy as they let us build everything else. If there was some sort of internal ticketing system, then moderation actions can acompany the opening of a ticket, which could feasibly contain a more than reasonable ledger of events. It's possible to render a model based around current forum infrastructure - as "advancements" seem somewhat glacial in pace currently - All it'd really take is a new section specifically for - head it up with a warning that the contents are possible to cause offence, and it's entire purpose is to hold content otherwise removed from public view to retain transparencies. From what I understand of the model in place, this can be done "ourselves"(well by the mod/admin) without intervention.

The suggestion to submit this to the citizens@ inbox does on outset seem like a reasonable suggestion, but questions submitted to this have gone unanswered for a long time now. I understand it's likely recieving a lot of input, but still, once fabricated something "the community" is happy with I will equally readily ensure this is delivered, should no-one else wish to take this upon themselves. Until appropropriated response from earlier endeavours, I would not hold for much hope however - much of my methodologies being evidence based.

I would encourage you not to view such "terminology" as "derogatory" - more affectionate exasperation at the simple fact they would know no better than an attack upon themselves, as a person. Discrimination, in this case, I feel perfectly justified. To ignore the engagement of third parties for no reason, It represents a sincere privacy risk, an acute security risk and even makes the preposterous assumption that this should be considered a valid comms medium - after expressly setting up the forums to pull Asgardian affairs away from derogatory services, like FB. Why should it be considered acceptable?

In what way does having transparency open up for "mob mentality and witchhunting"?

If there is not a formal method to deal with people who actively disrupting or harassing other Asgardians and if there is no one authorized to execute the method, then it falls on the community to do so. In practice, this means targeted harassment and disruption of the allegedly offending Asgardian's ability to participate in discussion. In practice, this means offending Asgardians are designated as such on an ad hoc, informal basis, i.e. by Asgardians persuading other Asgardians to harass other Asgardians.

There's also spambots. No banning means any spambot that gets through has to be dealt with through an informal community process rather than simply banned by the volunteer moderation team.

There is a methodology employed, it's just not prominently displayed, and the processes involved occur behind closed doors. The people currently authoroised to execute this method have been selected from "the community" AFAIK. Transparency should evidence and therefore prevent abuse of these powers in "witchunts".

I was by no means suggesting everyone get moderator or higher privileges instead suggesting what they do be transparent. I certainly at no point suggested that failure to ban both errant users and unscrupulous software would be clever.

Spam bots, tbh, should be easy to counter by multiple means. Software like fail2ban can review logs for various conditions - like clearly inhuman posting, the input system can further be augmented by cunning scripts to check posts against previously flagged spam, catching out things that have been pasted into other forums or similar. Signups themselves checking signup IP against known TOR exit nodes, publicly known/abused proxies, and also against published spam artist blacklists would go a long way within itself.

At least until someone nicely upgrades Mirai to be compatable with our forums, and we'll need to watch for posts from every user's lightbulbs, thermostat, toaster, kettle, fridge, tv etc.

I have to say that it looks really bad to see that somebody complaining about a lack of transparency and accountability has been banned without explanation.

I do find it ironic that EyeR was arguing in favor of having bans as an available option only to become banned.

OVG