Feedback for moderation policy post

[111]

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.

 

I think that is a horrible idea. It works on a site like SA, because you can just buy a new account. Banning is just a 10$ lesson.

 

Here there is nothing like that.

 

I do not apologize for the fact that sometimes people don't like what I say. I understand that sometimes it might be considered offensive or disruptive. However people need the chance to push the boundaries from time to time. /And/ people need to be able to learn where the boundaries are, without having mistakes be permanent.

 

Again, bringing up Something awful. There is a huge population of lurkers, many people will wait years to post, since if they fuck up, it's on their record forever. So they feel safer not posting.

 

I'd rather have people post than not, and not hold their mistakes against them. I'm reasonably ok with the warnings being permanent, but I think a Leper's colony type shame zone would hurt this community more than help it.

[111]

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.

 

Yes, but there is a blanket 20 points a year = ban.

 

Edit: Apparently osric's post means I read that wrong.

[Melkire]

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.

 

Yes, but there is a blanket 20 points a year = ban.

 

Edit: Apparently osric's post means I read that wrong.

 

Whoops, no, you read it right, I forgot the per-year clause. It was a late addition and it slipped my mind as a result. As Freelance said, that number 20 is under supervision and might be changed later down the line.

 

On a personal level, Nat, halfway there for 1/3rd of the year seems bad, but you've improved lately. Wouldn't be surprised to see that trend continue, especially in light of temp bans that will see actual use now. Having time to cool off does loads to curb bad posting habits. If you're worried about pre-existing warnings, that's something we can discuss in PMs, as I don't think we'll be counting those, only the ones from now moving forward. FW, please correct me if I'm wrong.

[Jancis]

Looks okay to me.

 

I'm comfortable with the wordage being in favor of the moderators. Overall I've seen them very lenient and shouldn't have policy held against them for unattractive spectacle behavior.

 

If enforcing it to the letter ends up feeling off, then people will leave regardless.

 

Thanks for taking the time to refresh and rehash what the forum needs.

[LiadansWhisper]

I think that people should also remember that sometimes someone has a bad day.

 

Doesn't excuse doing wrong, but if someone is behaving in a very out of character fashion (or seems obviously upset without provocation), I'd like to think that a short forum vacation would be the correct response to that, as opposed to simply throwing them out.

[Branson Thorne]

Are these rules not the same as before? Seem pretty standard to me, already thought they was in place.

[Aya]

I think comparisons to place like Something Awful and 4chan... are really silly.

 

This is a very well behaved, generally positive forum that has little bubbling's up of aggression (and passive aggression) that could stand gentle moderator input [That is my take anyway, please use the older thread if you disagree!]

 

I think a little behind-the-scenes focus on the moderator culture (which I am sure has happened!) will be much more useful and productive for us than a discussion about punishment.  We're fortunate for the group of moderators we have

 

The rules sound good, except that the rule against advertising seems rather board and unnecessary to me, but I am sure there's some reason behind it.

[ShoggMommy]

I think that people should also remember that sometimes someone has a bad day.

 

Doesn't excuse doing wrong, but if someone is behaving in a very out of character fashion (or seems obviously upset without provocation), I'd like to think that a short forum vacation would be the correct response to that, as opposed to simply throwing them out.

 

I think though, the automatic kicks are for very serious things. Example; posting keygens, bigotry or serious threats like burning down someone's house etc. Something like that doesn't constitute having a bad day. It would have to take a series of really bad days to be kicked off the site.

[Melkire]

Are these rules not the same as before? Seem pretty standard to me, already thought they was in place.

 

They weren't enumerated in detail, nor was moderation policy standardized or transparent.

 

This should also make reporting easier, since the specific rule under violation can now be cited.

 

There is also now a "Rules" tab in the site header for easy access and high visibility.

[Warren Castille]

Humbly requesting special treatment: I don't want my warning to drop. Temp ban me when they hit threshhold. I don't think withdrawing should remove my warnings.

 

I'm 20%. It'd better stay that way.

[111]

Humbly requesting special treatment: I don't want my warning to drop. Temp ban me when they hit threshhold. I don't think withdrawing should remove my warnings.

 

I'm 20%. It'd better stay that way.

 

Yes, but would you want to be permabanned if they reach a certain level?

[Warren Castille]

Humbly requesting special treatment: I don't want my warning to drop. Temp ban me when they hit threshhold. I don't think withdrawing should remove my warnings.

 

I'm 20%. It'd better stay that way.

 

Yes, but would you want to be permabanned if they reach a certain level?

 

If I reached that point yeah. It's only fair.

[Hammersmith]

Clarification:

 

By old internet habit I use throw-away accounts for signups CONSTANTLY.  I can't and don't have this sort of stuff crossing over with my "clean" address where most of my life lives.

 

Am I in violation? Do I need to change my email address? Because as cool as you guys are I don't really want my like, prime core email address floating out there.

[Dravus]

I'll reserve my full judgement for when the new system is fully implemented but I can't say there's anything I feel to be unfair. I'm also happy with the way in which the moderation has been handled so far.

 

...and that's not something I say lightly since biased moderation was the reason my partner and I turned our backs upon GW2's unofficial role-playing site. So in short: I approve!

[FreelanceWizard]

"Throw-away" e-mail addresses refer to services, most of which we've already banned, such as 10 Minute Mail that provide a one-time e-mail address. If your e-mail address is with an actual provider (Google, Yahoo, or what have you), you're fine. I know several people use character and game-specific e-mail addresses from real providers.

 

Regarding the new 20 point limit, that is only from this point forward. I thought about resetting everyone's warning level, but that's a fair amount of work, so we're just counting from now.

 

Regarding your request, Warren, if you're really serious about it, please drop me a PM and we'll talk about it.

 

Regarding the advertising ban, it's really for commercial advertising only and is just to clarify what we do with ad groups -- which is ban with extreme prejudice. I've gotten most of the worst sources via IP bans at the web server level, but we want to be transparent, so the rules are there so everyone can see them.

 

Regarding the Twitter approach, that's interesting, but I don't think we can do that in MyBB without a lot of coding.

 

And finally, regarding the notifications on posts for warnings, we'll take that one internally to discuss. I've noted I'm not a big fan of it, but I do like at least PMing someone to let them know why they were warned (which is an option in the warning control panel).

 

We know people will have bad days, which is why we wrote the system how we did and are emphasizing trying to defuse things in addition to having consequences. There's also a bit in there about PM notifications for first time mistakes and leeway for exceptions if necessary. Like I said before, if you're at least respectful to your fellow members, you'll never have to worry about this.

[Khadan]

I'm going to echo Natalie here and say that warnings are something that, while necessary, shouldn't be taken so seriously unless it's an actually serious thing. The scale seems to go from 0 to 60 in seconds flat rather than a gradual scale with some good peer review like "What's really a big deal vs. this IS actually a big deal".

 

One thing I've observed having been in a few different RP communities and even moderated some is that "tone" isn't something that should be policed since, unless it's blatantly obvious that the person's 'tone' is intended to be egregiously offensive or inflammatory, no one can say for certain, really. That's really only one small facet but I can say with absolute confidence that tone policing is not going to lead anywhere but to headaches and having to be so heavy handed that the mods end up hating the job or being hated by everyone; when your peers despise you then you'll likely find that you can't even sneeze without someone finding fault in the action and loudly voicing it.

 

On top of that I think the major thing is that we all need to remember that this is a website based on a video game where we all engage in pretendy fun times and this is focused towards the pretendy fun times aspect of it. By that I mean it's a good exercise to take a step back and make sure we're not taking ourselves too seriously. People are passive aggressive online pretty often, it happens and, really, it's how we cope without jumping up and pointing our fingers to scream at one another. 

 

The rules being how they are now though, there's a bit of wiggle room that could be abused in regards to what people find "petty" and what a "negative comment" actually is. These need to be either heavily defined as to what is and is not considered to be in that umbrella or reworded to state something like "When you are posting a history of this behavior you'll get a warning" etc. Otherwise someone who is feeling extra sensitive that day could take you disagreeing and giving reasonable statements as to why you disagree as "Harassment" and so on. 

 

So for now I'd say the rules need either iron hard clarification and need to be iron hard on both the user and admin side or give a bit of leniency so someone misconstruing statements can't abuse the system, etc.

[ShoggMommy]

People are passive aggressive online pretty often, it happens and, really, it's how we cope without jumping up and pointing our fingers to scream at one another. 

 

The rules being how they are now though, there's a bit of wiggle room that could be abused in regards to what people find "petty" and what a "negative comment" actually is. These need to be either heavily defined as to what is and is not considered to be in that umbrella or reworded to state something like "When you are posting a history of this behavior you'll get a warning" etc. Otherwise someone who is feeling extra sensitive that day could take you disagreeing and giving reasonable statements as to why you disagree as "Harassment" and so on. 

 

So for now I'd say the rules need either iron hard clarification and need to be iron hard on both the user and admin side or give a bit of leniency so someone misconstruing statements can't abuse the system, etc.

 

This is something I sort of agree with as well. "Negative" and "petty" is something that could be very subjective, and while I've been an admin for various sites, groups and guilds, etc. It's very easy for people to slip in and try to turn it against the mod team. I really like our mod team here, so I wouldn't want them to be abused just as I wouldn't want members to be abused.

[FreelanceWizard]

We already get a lot of abuse as it is. Our hope is that codifying things will help.

 

The thing is, there's no real way to create iron clad rules around some of the behaviors, such as insults and negative comments. What's an insult to one person can be a joshing to another. What I will say is that we'll continue to give people the benefit of the doubt; as those who've reported things in the past know, reporting a post doesn't necessarily equate to action taken against the poster. Sometimes an outside view gives perspective that what seemed aggressive isn't. Ultimately, the final decision of what to do and whether something is worthy of a warning lies in the hands of the mods and, finally, me (or whoever the admin may be). It's not as if we're turning the "report post" button into a "warn user" button.

 

As I've said before, those who are at the least professional and respectful to their fellow members won't notice any changes. Those who like to pick fights, shout down topics, post snarky images, and generally cause trouble will notice a rapid increase in their warning level and an automatic delivery into Time Out. I'll also note that, in the post, I explain that we're not in the business of policing tone except to deal with the worst cases. Change has to come from the membership, ultimately.

 

As far as trust goes, if people don't trust me... I don't know what I can say about that, other than you implicitly do when you log on. If there's truly a large group of people who feel I can't be trusted, then I'd be enthusiastic to resign, since I'm not helping anyone at that point.

[ShoggMommy]

Yeah, I understand that. I just wish that you didn't "already get a lot of abuse as it is" as mods. It's a hell of a chore that's for sure, but you guys are dedicated and I personally trust things with the mod team here much more than any other place that I've been with. This, while it still has it's issues (all places do!), is still the best community I have been a part of.

[C'kayah Polaali]

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?

[V'aleera]

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.

 

"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.

[Edvyn]

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

[Kage]

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.

[FreelanceWizard]

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.

[Khadan]

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. 

 

@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. 

 

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