+- Hydaelyn Role-Players (https://ffxiv-roleplayers.com/mybb18)
+-- Forum: Off-Topic (https://ffxiv-roleplayers.com/mybb18/forumdisplay.php?fid=42)
+--- Forum: Off-Topic Discussion (https://ffxiv-roleplayers.com/mybb18/forumdisplay.php?fid=14)
+--- Thread: Feedback for moderation policy post (/showthread.php?tid=11381)
RE: Feedback for moderation policy post - V'aleera - 04-30-2015
Quote:2. Stand by your words: "Don't say it if you don't want it to be around forever." Other than in cases of legal issues, harassment, and other violations of the rules, we don't typically delete posts or offer "fresh starts." We feel everyone who's a part of our community should stand by what they say, even if it's under a pseudonym. To that end, sockpuppetry is forbidden, as is the use of open proxy servers, disposable/cloaked e-mail addresses, and Tor. Additionally, post deletion is disabled for users; users should not attempt to use the edit function to work around this. If a post needs to be deleted, and you have a justifiable reason for the request, please contact a moderator for assistance.
Quote:"Selectively editing or deleting the content of posts to your benefit" refers to either deleting parts or entire posts that you don't like or that you feel show you in a poor light, or editing or deleting parts of posts to your benefit in an argument. This doesn't refer to normal post editing.
I'm not entirely sure what to make of this. I'm the kind of person who will make a post and then over the next few minutes find some nitpicks and edit it a few times. There's also been some instances where I make a post, then having it posted in front of me, quickly decide that it may have been poorly worded or inflammatory and choose to either remove the offending material or alter it to be more appropriate.
I'm just not really sure what interest is being served by actively penalizing self-moderation. I'd really appreciate some kind of example where someone removing inflammatory postings of their own volition is causing more harm than good.
RE: Feedback for moderation policy post - Edvyn - 04-30-2015
the 20 warnings a year = permaban rule is crazy, especially considering how easily someone can incur a warning. do we really need to cull people who say things other people don't like on an occasional basis? don't the warnings themselves work as incentive for that user to settle down?
people should not have to fear being banned for pulling silly shit every now and then, but under this rule they can be banned permanently for doing exactly that!
there was no need for a crackdown in the first place, and now we're getting into witch hunt territory where everyone who is even slightly not-nice must be removed because otherwise they're avoiding justice or some other nonsense
RE: Feedback for moderation policy post - Kage - 04-30-2015
I'll give an example since I did it once. It's basically trying to delete your posts (for whatever reason you have) by editing all of them and putting things just so it would count as an edit.
It's not quite self-moderation but... Well it was more like I believed that the thread had become a waste of time and instead of contacting mods to deal with it, I did. I got a 100% warning for it.
I have no issues with perma-bans. At all. If you got enough warnings for it then you deserve it is my honest opinion.
RE: Feedback for moderation policy post - FreelanceWizard - 04-30-2015
(04-30-2015, 12:24 AM)Intaki Wrote: I'm not entirely sure what to make of this. I'm the kind of person who will make a post and then over the next few minutes find some nitpicks and edit it a few times. There's also been some instances where I make a post, then having it posted in front of me, quickly decide that it may have been poorly worded or inflammatory and choose to either remove the offending material or alter it to be more appropriate.
I'm just not really sure what interest is being served by actively penalizing self-moderation. I'd really appreciate some kind of example where someone removing inflammatory postings of their own volition is causing more harm than good.
As noted in your quote, that doesn't refer to normal post editing, which is what you're describing. It's aimed at two behaviors that have never been okay, which are deleting posts that you'd prefer people not see after they've been around for a while and editing a post after someone's quoted it in opposition to your argument, then claiming you never said it in the first place. Those have both, surprisingly enough, actually happened! Since we're trying to be transparent, we're making it clear that those behaviors aren't acceptable. I'll clarify the post to indicate that self-moderation is fine.
RE: Feedback for moderation policy post - Khadan - 04-30-2015
(04-29-2015, 11:34 PM)C Wrote: Honestly, why would anyone feel justified in consistently skirting the boundaries of what's allowed by the rules? I mean, read the minor violations. They pretty much all define asshole behavior. Posting a bunch of off-topic stuff in someone's thread? That's asshole behavior. Insults? Asshole behavior.
Why would being an asshole be a good thing?
Rather, why would the rest of us think it's a good thing to keep assholes around?
Everyone has bad days. That's not the point. The current warning system seems to be well thought out to allow for that. Everyone acts like an asshole from time to time. The warning system allows for that. Acting like an asshole because you've had a crappy day doesn't make you an asshole - especially if you recognize that you acted like an asshole and apologize for it. Assholes are assholes because they consistently act like assholes.
Why would it benefit this forum to keep assholes around?
As FreelanceWizard just stated, how do you tell the difference between someone just messing around and being an asshole? I'm willing to bet both you and I have very different views on that as well as anyone else here, too.Â
@FreelanceWizard: If the policy is in fact to give the benefit of the doubt by default then good, you have my support. Giving the benefit of the doubt is likely something both the users and the admins should be abiding by, anyway.Â
On the topic of trust? I would posit that as long as the aforementioned benefit of the doubt is given and (hopefully) received, then trust is usually the likely end result. It's true that by even coming here there is a modicum of assumed trust and, of course, respect towards the admins since at the very least they've been around the block a bit. With that in mind, though, I would say that building/keeping trust is oftentimes fairly easy but even easier to lose through simple mistakes. If you and the admin team are adopting the 'benefit of the doubt' as a policy, though, I think you'll find a lot of cooperation engendered between users and admins.
No one likes base assumptions, I imagine. Admins is people too! =P
RE: Feedback for moderation policy post - McBeefâ„¢ - 04-30-2015
(04-29-2015, 11:34 PM)Ckayah Polaali Wrote: Honestly, why would anyone feel justified in consistently skirting the boundaries of what's allowed by the rules? I mean, read the minor violations. They pretty much all define asshole behavior. Posting a bunch of off-topic stuff in someone's thread? That's asshole behavior. Insults? Asshole behavior.
Why would being an asshole be a good thing?
Rather, why would the rest of us think it's a good thing to keep assholes around?
Everyone has bad days. That's not the point. The current warning system seems to be well thought out to allow for that. Everyone acts like an asshole from time to time. The warning system allows for that. Acting like an asshole because you've had a crappy day doesn't make you an asshole - especially if you recognize that you acted like an asshole and apologize for it. Assholes are assholes because they consistently act like assholes.
Why would it benefit this forum to keep assholes around?
Because Asshole is a statement that is different for everyone.
RE: Feedback for moderation policy post - ArmachiA - 04-30-2015
I'm on Something Awful really regularly, and I'm even in the SA LS on Balmung, and honestly there's no real public shaming in the way you would think. Most of the time, the leper colony is looked at at what NOT to do, and outside of GBS (which reverted back to more lax rules) and FYAD, SA actually has a lot of the same rules as the RPC. Read their FFXIV thread sometime. No Meme's, proper spelling, really overly snarky or aggressive people get put on probation or outright banned. SA has a weird reputation, but it's actually one of the BETTER moderated forums on the internet and a lot of it has to do with the <User was put on Probation for this post> <User was Banned for this post> type of stuff because it teaches people what not to do. I'm a huge supporter of it and even made a suggestion to that effect in a previous thread. I think that kind of transparency is good for a forum, and isn't really shaming, it's showing others "Here's what we mean." Plus it really does help to know what people have been warned for and to know a post you thought was egregious did get smacked down. It helps foster trust between mods and users, really.
On the rest of it. Honestly, it sounds fine to me? Users with regular behavior of being disruptive is something all forums face and is something all forums need to handle. I am curious on what exactly is going to get the smack down, and as much as I would like to I certainly can't ask you to bring an old thread as an example that got closed and say who would get in trouble under the new warning so I have an understanding...
or can I? <,<
RE: Feedback for moderation policy post - Jana - 04-30-2015
In my experience as a janator for a large forum, the best way to deal with "but what IS an 'asshole' or 'snark'" is simply to have a diverse group of moderators who're going to give each other feedback. Even if Mod A finds a post to be too mean, mods B and C might not and what may have been a warning could be demoted to shoulder-tap status (which I don't think is a thing in these rules? Usually just a PM of "hey watch yourself on this issue").
RE: Feedback for moderation policy post - C'kayah Polaali - 04-30-2015
(04-30-2015, 01:37 AM)Natalie Mcbeef Wrote:(04-29-2015, 11:34 PM)Ckayah Polaali Wrote: Honestly, why would anyone feel justified in consistently skirting the boundaries of what's allowed by the rules? I mean, read the minor violations. They pretty much all define asshole behavior. Posting a bunch of off-topic stuff in someone's thread? That's asshole behavior. Insults? Asshole behavior.
Why would being an asshole be a good thing?
Rather, why would the rest of us think it's a good thing to keep assholes around?
Everyone has bad days. That's not the point. The current warning system seems to be well thought out to allow for that. Everyone acts like an asshole from time to time. The warning system allows for that. Acting like an asshole because you've had a crappy day doesn't make you an asshole - especially if you recognize that you acted like an asshole and apologize for it. Assholes are assholes because they consistently act like assholes.
Why would it benefit this forum to keep assholes around?
Because Asshole is a statement that is different for everyone.
Not in this context. The policy guidelines are very clear.
RE: Feedback for moderation policy post - McBeefâ„¢ - 04-30-2015
(04-30-2015, 03:11 AM)Ckayah Polaali Wrote:(04-30-2015, 01:37 AM)Natalie Mcbeef Wrote:(04-29-2015, 11:34 PM)Ckayah Polaali Wrote: Honestly, why would anyone feel justified in consistently skirting the boundaries of what's allowed by the rules? I mean, read the minor violations. They pretty much all define asshole behavior. Posting a bunch of off-topic stuff in someone's thread? That's asshole behavior. Insults? Asshole behavior.
Why would being an asshole be a good thing?
Rather, why would the rest of us think it's a good thing to keep assholes around?
Everyone has bad days. That's not the point. The current warning system seems to be well thought out to allow for that. Everyone acts like an asshole from time to time. The warning system allows for that. Acting like an asshole because you've had a crappy day doesn't make you an asshole - especially if you recognize that you acted like an asshole and apologize for it. Assholes are assholes because they consistently act like assholes.
Why would it benefit this forum to keep assholes around?
Because Asshole is a statement that is different for everyone.
Not in this context. The policy guidelines are very clear.
Yes, which means that a user would be guilty of 'violating a policy' not 'being an asshole'
We don't want to keep people around who are assholes, but again, I think some level of dissension is ok in an internet forum. Breaking the rules does not mean being an asshole.
Again to bring up something awful. People will do bannable offences on occasion, just to make a point. However you can register again for 10 dollars, as it is not permanent.
I just think it's harsh line to equate "Breaking internet forum rules, possibly in good faith" with "Being an asshole."
RE: Feedback for moderation policy post - Leanne - 04-30-2015
(04-30-2015, 03:38 AM)Natalie Mcbeef Wrote:(04-30-2015, 03:11 AM)C Wrote:(04-30-2015, 01:37 AM)Natalie Mcbeef Wrote:(04-29-2015, 11:34 PM)C Wrote: Honestly, why would anyone feel justified in consistently skirting the boundaries of what's allowed by the rules? I mean, read the minor violations. They pretty much all define asshole behavior. Posting a bunch of off-topic stuff in someone's thread? That's asshole behavior. Insults? Asshole behavior.
Why would being an asshole be a good thing?
Rather, why would the rest of us think it's a good thing to keep assholes around?
Everyone has bad days. That's not the point. The current warning system seems to be well thought out to allow for that. Everyone acts like an asshole from time to time. The warning system allows for that. Acting like an asshole because you've had a crappy day doesn't make you an asshole - especially if you recognize that you acted like an asshole and apologize for it. Assholes are assholes because they consistently act like assholes.
Why would it benefit this forum to keep assholes around?
Because Asshole is a statement that is different for everyone.
Not in this context. The policy guidelines are very clear.
Yes, which means that a user would be guilty of 'violating a policy' not 'being an asshole'
We don't want to keep people around who are assholes, but again, I think some level of dissension is ok in an internet forum. Breaking the rules does not mean being an asshole.
Again to bring up something awful. People will do bannable offences on occasion, just to make a point. However you can register again for 10 dollars, as it is not permanent.
I just think it's  harsh line to equate "Breaking internet forum rules, possibly in good faith" with  "Being an asshole."
My opinion is the opposite. Because if anything, -I- as a person feel that what some people need to do at the moment, is temper their own words. We'd not be in this situation if it weren't for the rampant snarkyness and aggressive behavior that has overtaken the RPC. As I told back in another thread, it shouldn't be the job of the moderation to police us. It'd be our own job to police ourselves and our words, the moderation being ultimately some sort of last resort.
Unfortunately, it became the case where action of the moderation became necessary. It is a thing we as whole brought on ourselves and now we must reap the consequences.
And likewise, if someone has been skirting the boundaries, being borderline disruptive and get a warning for it, they need to face it and tell themselves: Well, perhaps I messed up! Or continue with their behavior and risk a ban.
Anyhow, that's my two cents. As always, free to disagree with me.
EDIT: As an extra thing I'd like to say, to disagree and have a different opinion is fine. To disagree for the hell of it is sort of a no no.
RE: Feedback for moderation policy post - Aduu Avagnar - 04-30-2015
I like them as they stand, should help with some of the attitudes around here.
Nat, if I may ask, to understand part of your issue with it; how do you break a rule in good faith?
RE: Feedback for moderation policy post - Mae - 04-30-2015
Overall, I think most of the additions are fine, and fairly reasonable. There's only one part that I'm not... overly thrilled with, because one interpretation seems overly harsh, while another seems like it's just a headache waiting to happen. I COULD be wrong with my interpretations, though...
Quote:--Warning points last for 4 weeks from the time the warning was issued.Are we talking 20 -total- points, or -active- points?
--Â You will only be warned once by a single moderator for each post that violates the moderation policies.Â
-- If you reach 20 warning points in a period of one year, you will be permanently banned from the site
Scenario A, "Total Points version 1": Heated debate comes up in thread. Member makes 6 posts (12 points active, 12 points total, 1-week ban is leveled) in the discussion that are deemed offensive before a Mod can step in and make a general warning. Four months pass, everything is quiet, and active points are reset. Thread pops up that eventually devolves into peanut-gallery meme posting, Member joins in once and is warned (2 points active, 14 points total). 20 days pass, Member makes mace-to-the-face comment and is warned (4 points active, 16 points total). Five months pass, everything is quiet, active points are reset. Member gets involved in another heated debate, makes 3 posts before Mod steps in and tells people to dial it back and issues warnings (6 points active, 22 points total). Permaban is leveled.
or
Scenario A, "Total Points version 2" Member makes at most 1 overly snarky comment every 20 days, and therefore never has above 4 active warning points and never needs the 1-week moderation of posts. 20 total points, however, is achieved in 9 months, permabanned.
versus
Scenario B, "Active Points": Heated debate comes up in thread. Member makes 3 posts (6 points active, 6 points total) that require warnings. 25 days pass, Member makes 2 posts  that is meme peanut gallery(10 points active, 10 points total, 1-week ban is leveled). 3 days pass, no incidents (because banned), active points are reduced to 4 (4 weeks have passed since first round of warnings). 4 days pass, ban is lifted. 14 days pass, Member makes 2 ugly posts (8 points active, 14 points total, no posting for a week). Posting ban is lifted, no posts for a week, active points are reduced to 4. 2 days pass, Member derails thread with 3 peanut-gallery meme postings (10 points active, 22 points total, 2-week ban). Member returns, behaves for 14 days, active points are reduced to 0. 5 days, overly-aggressive post (2 points active, 24 points total). 9 days, ugly post (4 points active, 26 total). 6 days, meme spam (6 points active, 28 total, posts are moderated for 1 week). 2 days pass, no incidents, active points are reduced to 4. 7 days pass, no incidents, active points are reduced to 2. 1 day passes, aggression occurs, Mod nips in bud after first post (4 points active, 28 total). 6 days pass, no incidents, active points are reduced to 2. Heated debate rears it's head again, Member makes 5 angry posts (12 points active, 38 total, 1-month ban). Everything is quiet for 1 months because of ban, active points are reduced to 0. Member returns, minds manners for another month. Two nasty posts (4 points active, 42 points total). Member remembers manners and plays nice for two weeks, commits 1 peanut gallery meme posting (6 points active, 44 points total, 1 week of moderated posts). Member plays nice for 7 days after moderation stops, active points reset to 2 ... ad nauseam...Â
If scenario A1 is how things are meant to run... I don't know if this is really fair. The 'bad behaviour' is infrequent, would make more sense to level the '1-week moderated posting' consequence for that last incident. Likewise, A2 is minor enough that I don't know if permaban is fair to the hypothetical member. Of course, I can easily and TOTALLY see how scenario B would be utterly exhausting and/or frustrating for Mods to deal with...Â
Like I said, I might be wrong with my interpretations...
----
Also, is there perhaps a way to petition to have warning points removed? Like in the case that a post was made and there were some genuinely horribly crossed-wires in the creation of it that one doesn't notice until people are quoting and responding negatively to, and before an apology/edit/redaction can be made, a Mod drops a warning?
(I ask this one specifically because it happened to me once, and the memory of how horrible that 100% unintentional mistake was has turned me into a nervous poster and is the reason why I've just spent 4 hours writing this thing...)
RE: Feedback for moderation policy post - C'kayah Polaali - 04-30-2015
(04-30-2015, 03:38 AM)Natalie Mcbeef Wrote: I just think it's harsh line to equate "Breaking internet forum rules, possibly in good faith" with "Being an asshole."
I equated consistently breaking those policies with being an asshole.
We all engage in asshole behavior from time to time. You do it. I do it. That's not the same as consistently engaging in this behavior.
Honestly, it takes effort to earn a permabannable amount of warnings from the minor rules violations. I'd have to insult someone 25 times to earn a permaban. If I really put myself to it, I could earn a permaban if I belittled someone a mere 10 times in a year.
You want to toss out the occasional insult to "prove a point" "in good faith"? Be my guest. You won't do anything except make work for a mod for the first four insults. Hit your first temp ban at 5 insults, and you can complain to your friends about how everyone's missing your point.
But 25 insults? 10 in a year? That's not breaking the occasional rule to prove a point. That's not acting in good faith. That's a consistent pattern of behavior. That's getting into the territory where I, personally, would take a good long look at myself to decide if I'm really the sort of person I want to be. Because it's clear that I wouldn't be the sort of person the RPC wants to have around.
RE: Feedback for moderation policy post - Edvyn - 04-30-2015
(04-30-2015, 04:46 AM)C Wrote: But 25 insults? 10 in a year? That's not breaking the occasional rule to prove a point. That's not acting in good faith. That's a consistent pattern of behavior.10 is not a big enough number to determine a consistent pattern with, on which decisions like banning someone permanently are then made