Feedback for moderation policy post

[FreelanceWizard]

We have posted our new official moderation policy and linked it, and the base rules it enforces, from the header.

 

This is a thread to centralize any discussion or questions on the policy in one place. Before we get started, I want to point out that the mods and I spent a great deal of time discussing how we wanted to handle this, including identifying both the specific problematic behaviors and the consequences for engaging in them. Please also note that it's not our intention to censor anyone (which is why we're moving away from post deletions as a general rule) or squelch discussion, but instead to be transparent and try to facilitate people talking in a genial, constructive way. Everyone can disagree; we just want people to disagree in a friendly -- or at least professional -- way. The underlying rules of the forum have not changed. We've just standardized our approach to moderation so it'll be more consistent, so there'll be consequences for those who repeatedly cause problems, and so everyone knows what the expectations are.

 

So, here, you can ask questions and discuss the new policy. As always, please be respectful and constructive. Thanks.

[111]

I agree with it all, except for one.

 

I don't think you should permanently ban anyone who has only done minor violations. I think temporary bans of a week are fine. However I think some level of dissension is healthy for a community.

 

The minor offenses are very 'eye of the beholder' and if someone does one of those a month, I don't think that's grounds for kicking them permanently from the site.

[Desu Nee]

I have some tidbits of confusion on the rules admiteddly, but all in all, it seems to work well. I much rather wait and see how it will be enforced in the future than to raise anything now. Honestly, my only complaint is how some of the violations seems to be slighty subjective to the vision of a moderator, and may not really be what it seems, but I I'll withhold my tongue for now, I have trust on the moderation team after all.

[Kellach Woods]

From my understanding, someone who'd get a permaban from that would be someone who has a history of doing that intentionally. Which is, arguably, not someone you'd want hanging around anyway.

 

I'm personally liking it, but honestly believe it won't do anything to change much around here.

[Harmonixer]

I'm mostly fine with everything. I don't think I cause trouble intentionally.

 

My only gripe is censoring myself. I understand it's out of respect for other posters and I'll dial it back if it can be helped but I don't think bad words are that harmful and shouldn't be treated as such. I like to think most people here can handle it and I'll likely speak here how I would speak to my own blood.

 

Obviously I won't be replacing my vocabulary exclusively with profanity but the occasional one here and there shouldn't raise any eyebrows I hope.

[111]

From my understanding, someone who'd get a permaban from that would be someone who has a history of doing that intentionally. Which is, arguably, not someone you'd want hanging around anyway.

 

It is not worded that way. And intention is very hard to judge.

 

I think someone should have to commit a moderate offence to be perma banned. Think of it, someone could get one a month, never have 2 at the same time, and then suddenly, 10 months later post a meme and go straight from nothing to permaban.

[C'kayah Polaali]

With regard to Any links in your signature in which can be interpreted as advertising., where do links to a FC fit into this? I've included a link to my FC in the past, with the idea that this would drum up members and RP for us by advertising it.

[allgivenover]

I imagine links to an FC website don't count, that would be enforcing the letter of the law without regard to its intent, and the admins are better than that.

[Warren Castille]

Warning should never go down.

 

Bannings should be posted in threads. Warnings should be posted in threads.

 

Go whole hog. Making examples of those in error would help, I think.

[FreelanceWizard]

We had a pretty lengthy discussion on consequences and the idea behind the yearly limit is to deal with those who cause trouble, then back off, then cause trouble again, and are generally a nuisance -- but never so much of one to actually receive any real consequences. The exact limit may be adjusted in the future, but 20 points is slightly less than 1 warning a month. I'd be surprised if someone were running at that rate who wasn't actively causing problems. Dissention is fine; it's only when someone is being a jerk with that dissent that there's going to be warnings dropped.

 

If there any points of confusion, this is a great place for us to clarify them. After all, many eyes make all bugs shallow, so to speak. We can then update the post with specifics. Likewise, while we can't make everything objective, anywhere that seems especially subjective is somewhere we'd like to take a look. Just remember, though, that we're not changing the underlying rules. If you're nice -- or at least respectful -- you won't run afoul of anything. Promise.

 

Regarding advertising, we're referring to commercial advertising there and will adjust accordingly.

 

Regarding profanity, I'm with you on profane language not being harmful necessarily, but tone can be hard to read in text. We're not going to sanction people for the occasional interjection or anything you could say on prime time US television.

 

EDIT: Regarding public shaming, we're not really enthusiastic about going down that road. I'd still rather handle these sorts of things privately so as not to invoke "mob justice."

[industrythirteen]

Advertising? Commission work is not commercial work, but are artists still allowed to put in their signatures that they take commissions?

[111]

I think Warren is joking, but Something Awful does this with its Leper's Colony.

 

http://forums.somethingawful.com/banlist.php

 

It also shows in the threads. I do think they should expire, but I'm ok with them remaining on record.

 

I say this about the warnings, partly because of my own personal experience. I have probably gotten 5-6 warnings this year, which would put me very close to the limit. I don't think I've ever done anything terribly, generally just disagreeing with a poster in a sarcastic way.

 

As a person who gets a lot of warnings, and who knows how variable they can be, it just seems bad to permaban people after slaps on the wrist. If someone gets 4-5 in a month, sure, that's reasonable. However if someone posts a meme in a thread, or is bitterly sarcastic in a response to a post, I don't think they should be permabanned. Especially if they are a member in good standing otherwise.

 

Obviously I have some personal stake in this ruling.

[ShoggMommy]

Advertising? Commission work is not commercial work, but are artists still allowed to put in their signatures that they take commissions?

 

I have to echo this as well. It's something I'm concerned about. While I don't have a link to my actual commission work on my sig I have to press this issue as well. Commission work is not commercial work. That being said can we still list that we take commissions?

[FreelanceWizard]

Yes, artists are exempt from the advertising ban when advertising commissions in their signature or advertising in the Artisan House, just as they always have been.

 

The problem with not having some sort of permaban for repeated slaps on the wrist is that what we've been doing has been slaps on the wrist -- a warning here, a PM there. It's clearly not working, and there are people who will take advantage of the "two free strikes a month" inherent in the system to wreak havoc, then fade back into the shadows. I'll note that there is an opportunity for the admin to make exceptions to the rule, and that the permaban count is still a bit up in the air. We've not done anything like that before, so adjustments are possible. In short, we'll keep an eye on it. If someone is actually getting close to that limit, we'll definitely reach out to them and we'll discuss it internally as well.

 

EDIT: Regarding commissions, commissions for gil are still banned per (insane) SE policy. Cash commissions remain fine, though.

[Warren Castille]

Not joking. Warnings shouldn't go away. Strikes in baseball eventually mean an out, right?

 

Don't forgive mistakes so simply. If people are being offensive, don't let it drop so easily.

[ShoggMommy]

Thanks for clarification on that Freelance.  

Yeah I knew the gil-for-art is not acceptable, as I posted it on my tumblr as a reminder.

[cuideag]

Bannings should be posted in threads. Warnings should be posted in threads.

 

I think Warren is joking, but Something Awful does this with its Leper's Colony.

 

http://forums.somethingawful.com/banlist.php

 

It also shows in the threads. I do think they should expire, but I'm ok with them remaining on record.

 

I agree with this. ^ Bit skeptical about "mob justice" but I think it isn't unreasonable to have ban/warning records somewhere if not in the threads where they are distributed.

[Kellach Woods]

I think someone should have to commit a moderate offence to be perma banned. Think of it, someone could get one a month, never have 2 at the same time, and then suddenly, 10 months later post a meme and go straight from nothing to permaban.

 

Said scenario should never actually occur as per the rules themselves.

 

Warning points last for 4 weeks from the time the warning was issued.

 

They'd be at 2 points across all months, post a meme and that'd be their minor for the month, leaving them at either 2 or 4 points.

[Warren Castille]

Hypothetical:

 

WHAT THE FUCK YOU BITCH

 

USER WAS WARNED FOR THIS POST

 

Lets people know what not to do. God knows I've done it prior!

[Melkire]

Hypothetical:

 

WHAT THE FUCK YOU BITCH

 

USER WAS WARNED FOR THIS POST

 

Lets people know what not to do. God knows I've done it prior!

 

I've seen this on SA and elsewhere. I don't think it's unreasonable. It's an extra step on the mods' part for extra transparency, but I'd be fine with that. Whether this qualifies as "public shaming" is something I can't answer for everyone, but I think in clear-cut cases of violations, it's not shaming so much as reinforcing the fact that the rules are still there.

 

 

EDIT: I forgot the 20-max-per-year clause that was the crux of the dscussion. Whoops. Chucked that part of my post out b4 more confusion.

[Warren Castille]

Trust me: I've gotten more than my share of warnings. I'd love to know where they came from!

[ShoggMommy]

Hypothetical:

 

WHAT THE FUCK YOU BITCH

 

USER WAS WARNED FOR THIS POST

 

Lets people know what not to do. God knows I've done it prior!

 

I agree with this as well. I've not been warned before but I'd like to make sure I'm not treading on things just incase. I usually don't post charged posts but I also want to make sure what is or what is not acceptable.

[BumblingSeaBiscuit]

Hypothetical:

 

WHAT THE FUCK YOU BITCH

 

USER WAS WARNED FOR THIS POST

 

Lets people know what not to do. God knows I've done it prior!

 

I agree with this as well. I've not been warned before but I'd like to make sure I'm not treading on things just incase. I usually don't post charged posts but I also want to make sure what is or what is not acceptable.

 

I would also be in support of this!

[K'nahli]

Trust me: I've gotten more than my share of warnings. I'd love to know where they came from!

 

You should get a message with a link to the post in question along with the specific violation should you ever when you next do something bold ^^

[Zyrusticae]

I think the way twitter is handling it is very interesting:

 

The user can't proceed without deleting the tweet, and seeing the tweet in their face forces the user to confront what they did wrong. I know that it's all too easy to see the warning message and then just scroll past and continue on business as usual. It's impossible to do that if your account is locked until you face the music.

 

I don't know how difficult this would be to implement, however, and I understand that the moderation doesn't want posts to be deleted anymore either. Perhaps a pop-up showing the post in a window that requires the user to click on a link in the middle of the page could serve the same purpose.