Feedback for moderation policy post

[111]

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.

[ArmachiA]

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 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? <,<

[Jana]

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").

[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?

 

Because Asshole is a statement that is different for everyone.

 

Not in this context. The policy guidelines are very clear.

[111]

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."

[Leanne]

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.

[Aduu Avagnar]

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?

[Mae]

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...

 

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

-- You will only be warned once by a single moderator for each post that violates the moderation policies. 

-- If you reach 20 warning points in a period of one year, you will be permanently banned from the site

Are we talking 20 -total- points, or -active- points?

 

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... 

 

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... 

 

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...)

[C'kayah Polaali]

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.

[Edvyn]

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

[FreelanceWizard]

Regarding the 20 point rule, that's 20 points accumulated in one year, not active points. With that said, if you hit 20 active points, you'll be banned permanently anyway under the "escalating bans at 10 points" rule. As I've said, we may adjust that number depending on how things go, and certainly I'm going to talk to someone who's getting close to that number. The point of the rule is to catch people who take advantage of the "free two strikes" inherent in the system to regularly show up and cause problems, not to punish people who screw up now and then -- though I'm fairly confident that the 20 point rule gives a pretty clear view on a pattern of behavior. Think of it like points on a driver's license. Sure, getting caught running a red light isn't going to get your license revoked, but if you repeatedly do it, it establishes a pattern of behavior that the State sees as dangerous enough to warrant a more serious punishment.

 

With that in mind, to Mae's point, we're generally not going to take advantage of heated threads to lay into people with warnings. That's not really productive and it's not exactly fair. Our job is to cool those threads down before it gets to that point, and if things are going really off the rails, we have lock, split, and remove tools to that end. I'm also working on a way to set a thread to have posting limits or post review so we have a tool that's lighter than a lock, but more stringent than a "hey, calm down" post.

 

Regarding removing warnings, the same appeals process exists as always: PM me with what happened and we'll talk about it. I can lift bans, reverse warnings, and make exemptions. Also, note that mods can send a "hey, be careful" PM instead of a formal warning in the case where they feel there was no bad faith.

 

Regarding examples, PM me and we can go through a thread if you'd like. We're discussing making the warnings public in a thread; it's a touchy issue, with good points on both sides.

[Kage]

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? <,<

I'm perfectly fine with this as well. >.> I'd love to see an old thread get dissected for the content? and/or tone of the posts. I'm not sure how hard or easy it would be to do so over PMs for multiple people...? I just figured an example made to all would be easier.

 

I mean the thing is, if you've accumulated so much to have made a pattern of being a disruptive presence enough to have reached a certain number, I would think you would see that there's a problem that needs addressing.

 

On the subject of warnings being public, I'd happily see that as well. I don't view it so much as shaming the one person or post, but it's really telling people "Hey everyone, watch it/this. This is the type of behavior we [trying to be all-inclusive] want to curb." I've wanted to suggest it earlier but I know some people do see it as shaming. I disagree with that but as it's come up I want to voice my support for it.

[Melodia]

I'd love to see an old thread get dissected for the content? and/or tone of the posts. I'm not sure how hard or easy it would be to do so over PMs for multiple people...? I just figured an example made to all would be easier.

 

As someone who's been warned and been surly (hoping I've been good lately :blush: ) I also would love to see an example just to understand where that line is.

[Kage]

I'd love to see an old thread get dissected for the content? and/or tone of the posts. I'm not sure how hard or easy it would be to do so over PMs for multiple people...? I just figured an example made to all would be easier.

 

As someone who's been warned and been surly (hoping I've been good lately :blush: I also would love to see an example just to understand where that line is.

<,< I was almost banned? >.>; In fact, iirc, I was supposed to have been but I didn't even know it was such a bad thing.

 

On reflection, I really should have just PM'd a mod to delete the thread. It wasn't about being ashamed of what I'd said or posted but that I saw it as a useless thread taking up space that had lost its purpose.

[Khadan]

Regarding the 20 point rule, that's 20 points accumulated in one year, not active points. With that said, if you hit 20 active points, you'll be banned permanently anyway under the "escalating bans at 10 points" rule. As I've said, we may adjust that number depending on how things go, and certainly I'm going to talk to someone who's getting close to that number. The point of the rule is to catch people who take advantage of the "free two strikes" inherent in the system to regularly show up and cause problems, not to punish people who screw up now and then -- though I'm fairly confident that the 20 point rule gives a pretty clear view on a pattern of behavior. Think of it like points on a driver's license. Sure, getting caught running a red light isn't going to get your license revoked, but if you repeatedly do it, it establishes a pattern of behavior that the State sees as dangerous enough to warrant a more serious punishment.

 

With that in mind, to Mae's point, we're generally not going to take advantage of heated threads to lay into people with warnings. That's not really productive and it's not exactly fair. Our job is to cool those threads down before it gets to that point, and if things are going really off the rails, we have lock, split, and remove tools to that end. I'm also working on a way to set a thread to have posting limits or post review so we have a tool that's lighter than a lock, but more stringent than a "hey, calm down" post.

 

Regarding removing warnings, the same appeals process exists as always: PM me with what happened and we'll talk about it. I can lift bans, reverse warnings, and make exemptions. Also, note that mods can send a "hey, be careful" PM instead of a formal warning in the case where they feel there was no bad faith.

 

Regarding examples, PM me and we can go through a thread if you'd like. We're discussing making the warnings public in a thread; it's a touchy issue, with good points on both sides.

 

So just to reiterate since I didn't see it in my quick scan by of the first post this morning. Do your 'warning points' in the scope of the big 20 ever fall off like they're supposed to, right now? I.e. 2 weeks and your warning percentage goes down etc? Or is getting a black mark on your record, no matter what the offense was, damning for life? To continue your example with the DMV, the 'strikes' on your driving record don't count against you forever! =P

[111]

 

So just to reiterate since I didn't see it in my quick scan by of the first post this morning. Do your 'warning points' in the scope of the big 20 ever fall off like they're supposed to, right now? I.e. 2 weeks and your warning percentage goes down etc? Or is getting a black mark on your record, no matter what the offense was, damning for life? To continue your example with the DMV, the 'strikes' on your driving record don't count against you forever! =P

 

Also driving record violations are for clear and measurable actions that harm the safety of others.

 

I just don't like the idea of being permanently banned because I might speak my mind too freely. Obviously, its not my decision, I can't change it, but I still do not like it.

 

I think dissension is healthy for a community, and I don't like permanent penalties placed on users who dissent.

 

That's just the long and short of it. Communities without some level of conflict end up stagnating into circlejerks and hugboxes. The trick is managing that conflict, to keep it from spiraling out of control, but also allow members to feel like they are not being censored.

 

I think sometimes inflammatory points need to be made, points that there is no nice way of stating. I think it's fine to give warnings to make people think twice about making those points, but I think is harmful to punish them too severely.

[ShoggMommy]

* as a note phone makes my font massive so I apologize if it isn't fixed with bbcode.

 

There's a difference between someone shaking things up or disagreeing with other people and someone continuously insulting others and treating people badly. It gets old and it turns people off from involving themselves and eventually it becomes an echo box in threads.

 

Dissent is fine to an extent, if it becomes excessive it needs consequence.

 

Abridged situation since im on mobile; I was in a guild once, different game where a guy was very sexist, very creepy and I told the GM often to be careful with it. He agreed but this continued for months, the creepy dude was argumentive as well, caused a lot of problems. He was told to stop, didnt. And was told to leave. Later he was let back for benefit of doubt and the same behavior continued.

 

He was completely kicked and has done nothing but spread bs in that community about the guild. No one believes him but that sort of behavior doesn't correct itself.

 

And that is the sort of behavior which the mods I believe are meaning here. The consistent creates problems sort of person. Not someone who likes to rock the boat sonetimes.

[FreelanceWizard]

The 20 point limit is on a yearly basis -- calendar year, in fact, but we're not retroactively bringing things in from before the end of April. At the end of the year, that count resets. So, right now, unless someone's been warned that I don't know about, everyone is at zero.

 

Natalie, there's nothing wrong with making inflammatory points. The problem is when you make the inflammatory point and also decide to be a jerk about it. I don't think having people pick fights and generally be unpleasant now and then is a good thing. It makes work for the mods and it generally bothers everyone. The enforcement policies have nothing to do with squelching dissent and everything to with ensuring that dissenting voices keep a reasonable volume.

 

The permanent penalties are not to eliminate those who dissent. They're to eliminate those who repeatedly demonstrate that their opinions, ideas, and lulz are more important than the community as a whole and the rules we all abide by.

 

EDIT: Oh, I've gotten a couple of PMs asking for examples. I'm looking for some good ones and will get back to you in the near future.

[Nebbs]

Two things.. apologies if they were answered but I can't read all the posts to check.

 

1. Will there be an adjustment period for people to understand what has changed and how that affects the current accepted posting styles? I would recommend a month.

 

2. Otherwise.. Can we assume if we have not had any warnings so far that our behaviour is fine?

[FreelanceWizard]

1. Will there be an adjustment period for people to understand what has changed and how that affects the current accepted posting styles? I would recommend a month.

 

2. Otherwise.. Can we assume if we have not had any warnings so far that our behaviour is fine?

 

1. Since the rules have not really changed (we're just going to be enforcing the ones we have more effectively), we're not really going to offer any kind of adjustment period. However, like I said, we're going to give people the benefit of the doubt and use a lot of the "PM notification" instead of formal warnings, particularly where there's been confusion in the past.

 

2. If you haven't gotten warnings or had posts removed, then yes, you can assume you won't have any issues under the new policies.

[111]

 

The permanent penalties are not to eliminate those who dissent. They're to eliminate those who repeatedly demonstrate that their opinions, ideas, and lulz are more important than the community as a whole and the rules we all abide by.

 

 

Ok Freelance, I'll trust that this is true.

 

I'm not planning to change my behavior based on these new policies, I'll probably still get some warnings now and again, but thinking back, I'd have to work really hard to get 20 in a year.

 

I still don't like it on some level, but I get what you're saying and I trust in the ability of you and the other mods to make those decisions.

[Nebbs]

1. Will there be an adjustment period for people to understand what has changed and how that affects the current accepted posting styles? I would recommend a month.

 

2. Otherwise.. Can we assume if we have not had any warnings so far that our behaviour is fine?

 

1. Since the rules have not really changed (we're just going to be enforcing the ones we have more effectively), we're not really going to offer any kind of adjustment period. However, like I said, we're going to give people the benefit of the doubt and use a lot of the "PM notification" instead of formal warnings, particularly where there's been confusion in the past.

 

2. If you haven't gotten warnings or had posts removed, then yes, you can assume you won't have any issues under the new policies.

 

 

Phew.. was panicking there .. thanks *hugs* :love:  

 

It all sounds fine, and you moderators really have a job cut out.. *leaves cake*

[Khadan]

So everyone's getting a blanket reset as of the induction of this ruleset? I suppose if that's the case then a clean slate is fair. That and anyone who has a history of naughtiness will likely climb the ladder pretty fast, lol.

[FreelanceWizard]

Yep, that's the idea. It wouldn't be fair to say that people are being held accountable to our new system's standards for things done under the less standardized system of moderation before.

 

And again, just so everyone sees it:

 

If you haven't gotten warnings or had posts removed, then yes, you can assume you won't have any issues under the new policies.

 

You can always appeal a warning to me, even if I issued the warning.

[OttoVann]

As long as I am immune to points the system is fine.