Author Topic: Criticism of Moderation  (Read 23631 times)

Offline Basket Burner

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1072
  • I break Basket Weavers.
    • View Profile
Re: Criticism of Moderation
« Reply #80 on: December 08, 2011, 04:48:14 PM »
Or just try to assess his points and then figure what to do? Banning should always be the last option and in this thread I see nothing that would warrant a ban for Basket Burner.

Since I missed the original thread, what makes everyone say he's Sunic? I can see some similarities in their posts, I must admit that much. However, it has already been said in one of the metaforum threads that all users should be judged by their merits here, not past behaviour. As such BB's alleged previous nicknames don't matter.

I can answer that one. Anyone that is exceptionally intelligent, has a sense of humor, and bites back is Sunic. I know this because another poster named liquid150 got accused of being him. He showed up and told the offender off for it. I've also been accused of being someone named Ubernoob, who I'm told is another person with a remotely similar style. Just because someone acts in vaguely the same way does not mean that they are the same person. Claiming that they are is a sign of Asperger's Syndrome. Not an insult, but that is one of the signs.

I do know Sunic. Sunic has been kind enough to fill in the gaps on many of the things I was confused about here and elsewhere. Which probably isn't the best thing for my outlook on these boards considering, but he's also been right far more often than not. I have not explained the relationship between myself and him, other than to roll my eyes at all of the accusations. And I am not going to, not now at least as everyone that I know well enough for that either isn't involved with these boards or doesn't care, and the rest... either nothing productive would come of it, or the person would not believe me and nothing productive would come of it. So instead I'll just allow people to think whatever they want, starting with thinking that I have a penis and leave them to their preconceived notions. At the same time, the constant accusations that are meant as flamebait given the context aren't helping anyone, though outside of a few outliers I think that we are past that now.

This probably got lost, but earlier I asked something. Warnings, in addition to being anonymous when they are sent also seem to be anonymous after being received. There's no profile option to look at them, to see this percentage that keeps getting referenced or any of that. Come to think of it, these boards are bad about giving feedback in general. Negative, because you can't see your own infraction information and positive because you can't see what you are getting kudos from and why, etc. I just treat the latter as a circle jerk number and ignore it, but not being able to see the former is a problem.
I think the entire infraction thing and percentage is solely viewable to the mods. The actual percentage itself is arbitrary, and it's up to whoever is using it to decide how many points to add (although I think each individual mod is limited by how much can be assigned per user per day, or so). It's not meant to be publicly viewable. Although, we have discussed signing the warnings, so that way, the user could discuss the infraction with them; it just doesn't do that on its own.

So far as I know, we can't set feedback on the Kudos feature, but I could be wrong.

That's... very annoying. Just the word warning implies they are just that, warnings. They don't carry any actual punishment, as they are given before the infractions. The whole percentage thing didn't even come up until after the fact. Same as being told warnings are more like infractions. Combine that with not being able to check and it's easy to be blindsided. Part of the reason I did walk away (and would have stayed gone, were it not for the flamebait thread) was because the second warning came out of nowhere talking about putting me in moderation status. The first sounded like... an actual warning. A hey knock it off, but nothing else yet. Not even knowing you are getting closer to being punished, much less how close does nothing to stop bad behavior and everything to confuse and anger people. There is also no indication as to when those things wear off.

Offline Hallack

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ***
  • Posts: 415
  • With Jetpacks
    • View Profile
Re: Criticism of Moderation
« Reply #81 on: December 08, 2011, 05:17:09 PM »
... Combine that with not being able to check and it's easy to be blindsided. Part of the reason I did walk away (and would have stayed gone, were it not for the flamebait thread) was because the second warning came out of nowhere talking about putting me in moderation status. The first sounded like... an actual warning. A hey knock it off, but nothing else yet. Not even knowing you are getting closer to being punished, much less how close does nothing to stop bad behavior and everything to confuse and anger people. There is also no indication as to when those things wear off.

Howdy.  I don't really have a dog in this fight but wanted to make an observation.  I'd have to say I don't think having an "In the Doghouse" meter or other way to see how much trouble one is in with the moderators is such a great thing.  On its face needing such a meter to be able to monitor how to moderate and limit ones 'trouble making' behaviors is rather silly.

'I can push this far but if I do that they will actually punish me.'

Not really directed at you just the idea that I seemed to pick up from that post.  Hell, personally I don't even know if you or anyone else has been troublesome here at the new forums. 

And, certainly possible I misunderstood the post. 

Best for all is just to post civilly and not say or do things that would need to be kept track of on any sort of 'bad behavior chart'.  If someone thinks it might get them a 'bad star' then just don't do it.

Anyways, Cheers
« Last Edit: December 08, 2011, 05:18:55 PM by Hallack »

Offline X-Codes

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 2001
  • White, Fuzzy, Sniper Rifle.
    • View Profile
Re: Criticism of Moderation
« Reply #82 on: December 08, 2011, 05:22:30 PM »
No, Hallack, you have it exactly right.  There's no legitimate reason for someone to see their own douche-o-meter, because there's no legitimate reason for someone to analyze whether or not they should be less of a douche.  You should always try to be less of a douche.

Offline Basket Burner

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1072
  • I break Basket Weavers.
    • View Profile
Re: Criticism of Moderation
« Reply #83 on: December 08, 2011, 05:36:46 PM »
... Combine that with not being able to check and it's easy to be blindsided. Part of the reason I did walk away (and would have stayed gone, were it not for the flamebait thread) was because the second warning came out of nowhere talking about putting me in moderation status. The first sounded like... an actual warning. A hey knock it off, but nothing else yet. Not even knowing you are getting closer to being punished, much less how close does nothing to stop bad behavior and everything to confuse and anger people. There is also no indication as to when those things wear off.

Howdy.  I don't really have a dog in this fight but wanted to make an observation.  I'd have to say I don't think having an "In the Doghouse" meter or other way to see how much trouble one is in with the moderators is such a great thing.  On its face needing such a meter to be able to monitor how to moderate and limit ones 'trouble making' behaviors is rather silly.

'I can push this far but if I do that they will actually punish me.'

Not really directed at you just the idea that I seemed to pick up from that post.  Hell, personally I don't even know if you or anyone else has been troublesome here at the new forums. 

And, certainly possible I misunderstood the post. 

Best for all is just to post civilly and not say or do things that would need to be kept track of on any sort of 'bad behavior chart'.  If someone thinks it might get them a 'bad star' then just don't do it.

Anyways, Cheers

The problem with that is that the site staff use the word warning when they mean infraction. So you get a warning, you take that to mean stop. Then later you get another warning for something else, and learn those are actually infractions. And that you are close to something you never heard about before. Even if you ignore the numbers entirely, how do you expect someone to stop if they aren't even aware how far they are crossing the line?

Offline Halinn

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2067
  • My personal text is impersonal.
    • View Profile
Re: Criticism of Moderation
« Reply #84 on: December 08, 2011, 05:56:15 PM »
The problem with that is that the site staff use the word warning when they mean infraction. So you get a warning, you take that to mean stop. Then later you get another warning for something else, and learn those are actually infractions. And that you are close to something you never heard about before. Even if you ignore the numbers entirely, how do you expect someone to stop if they aren't even aware how far they are crossing the line?
Ideally, people should stop being douches before they start. Failing that, after receiving first warning.

Offline Hallack

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ***
  • Posts: 415
  • With Jetpacks
    • View Profile
Re: Criticism of Moderation
« Reply #85 on: December 08, 2011, 06:07:39 PM »
Well, by its nature a warning is saying "hey, stop we dont' like what your doing."  Now, it may be that they need to clarify what behavior is being warned against.  I don't know. 

Heck, if there is ambiguity just ask 'em.  Of course, I then go back to the idea that if someone thinks they might should clarify if a certain behavior is acceptable... probably best just to skip it in the first place. 

Have a great evening all.   Off to go have some delicious deer steaks and other good ole home cookin' :)

Offline Basket Burner

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1072
  • I break Basket Weavers.
    • View Profile
Re: Criticism of Moderation
« Reply #86 on: December 08, 2011, 06:24:31 PM »
Well, by its nature a warning is saying "hey, stop we dont' like what your doing."  Now, it may be that they need to clarify what behavior is being warned against.  I don't know. 

Heck, if there is ambiguity just ask 'em.  Of course, I then go back to the idea that if someone thinks they might should clarify if a certain behavior is acceptable... probably best just to skip it in the first place. 

Have a great evening all.   Off to go have some delicious deer steaks and other good ole home cookin' :)

Asking them presumes you know who sent it, and that it was not anonymous. We've been over that. The problem is that a warning says you aren't in trouble yet, but you should stop doing that thing. Then you get a warning for something else and learn both were actually infractions and that are about to sucker punch you.

Offline Sinfire Titan

  • Hustler 3
  • Retired Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 1443
  • You have one round to give a rat's ass.
    • View Profile
Re: Criticism of Moderation
« Reply #87 on: December 08, 2011, 06:58:51 PM »
Asking them presumes you know who sent it, and that it was not anonymous. We've been over that. The problem is that a warning says you aren't in trouble yet, but you should stop doing that thing. Then you get a warning for something else and learn both were actually infractions and that are about to sucker punch you.

We've considered signing the PMs we send as part of a warning, but we've also come to an agreement on the steps in the moderation process. Disclaimer: This is only an explanation. This is not aimed at anyone, just information.

  • Verbally warn the members in the thread itself. THis has no bearing on your account, it's just us telling the people posting in that thread to watch it. If needed, we split the thread off or ask the posters in question to take the subtopic to PMs.
  • Send a warning worth 0 points. While you guys cannot see your warning points or how many are given in each warning, we can and we do. This warning is a little stronger than the verbal ones, but also more private. We also consider deleting the offending post. Regardless, we announce both in the report and in our thread on the Moderator section that we are issuing a warning like this.
  • Issue a 5-to-20 point warning. Again, you do not know how much the warning is worth, but like the above this has no impact on your account. Once you hit 10 points, your screenname is put on the Moderator Watch List. This highlights any post you make, allowing us to preemptively deal with flaming or other issues.
  • Accumulate 30 points, and any time you try to post, the post is sent directly to the Approval Request section. It will not be posted in a thread until a Moderator or Admin has reviewed the post itself and approved it.
  • Accumulate 60 points, and your posting privileges are revoked completely. You can still PM people, although we have not decided if we will allow other posters to post for you.
  • Accumulate 100 points, and your account will be banned for an undetermined amount of time (although it takes something extraordinary to get to 100 considering you can't post).
  • Points do not expire after a set amount of time.The only exception is if you have 100 points. Once the agreed upon duration of your banning has expired, we reduce the points until your total is at the point we deem necessary to keep you in check. Depending on the circumstances, your points may be reduced to 0 and you'll be given a fresh start.
  • While warnings do not expire over time, you can petition to a Mod/Admin and see if they will remove points. This is largely a matter of the moderator's opinion of how you present your case to that Mod/Admin. However, merely apologizing for those actions may not result in us reducing your points.

Finally, we can deduct warning points at our leisure without being asked. We have not come to an agreement on when or why we should do this, just that we are able to do so. And, depending on the post/PM that was reported to us, we may skip a step. If the issue is big enough, multiple moderators will issue a warning for the same post, and then subsequently delete the offending post.

Under no circumstances are we to edit a post that isn't ours without the permission of Meg or Josh. Even then, Meg has requested that we ask the person who posted it to do so for us. That's Rolland's modus operandi, not ours.

The latter reason, incidentally, is why the Handbook Editor requests are being turned down. We've told Josh that the Handbook Editor group could cause serious problems, and we aren't going to allow members to join it for quite some time (the group's purpose is to edit handbooks that have been abandoned).
Concerned about how moderation works here? Please PM this account.

Offline X-Codes

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 2001
  • White, Fuzzy, Sniper Rifle.
    • View Profile
Re: Criticism of Moderation
« Reply #88 on: December 08, 2011, 08:00:07 PM »
I think points should decay over time, unless the 100-point threshold is reached.  This goes to the idea of the trouble : value ratio.  Over time, you make contributions to the community.

Offline SneeR

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1531
  • Sneering
    • View Profile
Re: Criticism of Moderation
« Reply #89 on: December 08, 2011, 08:04:41 PM »
I always thought that Meg and Josh had a strict "no-tampering-just-deleting" policy about posts. I remember her specifically saying somewhere even if your offensive post has paragraphs of good stuff, the whole thing will be deleted because of the one offensive thing.
A smile from ear to ear
3.5 is disappointingly flawed.

Offline X-Codes

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 2001
  • White, Fuzzy, Sniper Rifle.
    • View Profile
Re: Criticism of Moderation
« Reply #90 on: December 08, 2011, 08:13:12 PM »
I always thought that Meg and Josh had a strict "no-tampering-just-deleting" policy about posts. I remember her specifically saying somewhere even if your offensive post has paragraphs of good stuff, the whole thing will be deleted because of the one offensive thing.
It's not really deleted, though, just moved to the trash forum, so you can copy/paste the good stuff at your leisure.

Offline RobbyPants

  • Female rat ninja
  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8324
    • View Profile
Re: Criticism of Moderation
« Reply #91 on: December 08, 2011, 09:50:41 PM »
Accumulate 60 points, and your posting privileges are revoked completely. You can still PM people, although we have not decided if we will allow other posters to post for you.
I don't think we should. Otherwise, people other than mods are making decisions on whether or not to make the post. Strictly speaking, it's more lenient than 30 points in that regard.


I always thought that Meg and Josh had a strict "no-tampering-just-deleting" policy about posts. I remember her specifically saying somewhere even if your offensive post has paragraphs of good stuff, the whole thing will be deleted because of the one offensive thing.
They do. I guess it has something to do with liability and ownership of the content. If we delete stuff, we're not responsible for what people say is the idea.  They had that policy back on BG, too.
My creations

Please direct moderation-related PMs to Forum Staff.

Offline Amechra

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4560
  • Thread Necromancy a specialty
    • View Profile
Re: Criticism of Moderation
« Reply #92 on: December 09, 2011, 12:03:53 AM »
I like that progression, especially the ability to petition you guys in case we think we've been wronged in some manner; actually feels like, you know, it's a just system.
"There is happiness for those who accept their fate, there is glory for those that defy it."

"Now that everyone's so happy, this is probably a good time to tell you I ate your parents."

Offline Sinfire Titan

  • Hustler 3
  • Retired Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 1443
  • You have one round to give a rat's ass.
    • View Profile
Re: Criticism of Moderation
« Reply #93 on: December 09, 2011, 12:25:51 AM »
I think points should decay over time, unless the 100-point threshold is reached.  This goes to the idea of the trouble : value ratio.  Over time, you make contributions to the community.

We have not discussed how warning points should be managed very extensively. Such a change may be implemented later on.
Concerned about how moderation works here? Please PM this account.

Offline Basket Burner

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1072
  • I break Basket Weavers.
    • View Profile
Re: Criticism of Moderation
« Reply #94 on: December 09, 2011, 08:39:31 AM »
Sinfire: Is that the current policy, or the new one? And if the point warning has no impact on your account, why is it immediately followed by describing the effects that points have on your account?

Offline RobbyPants

  • Female rat ninja
  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8324
    • View Profile
Re: Criticism of Moderation
« Reply #95 on: December 09, 2011, 08:48:48 AM »
And if the point warning has no impact on your account, why is it immediately followed by describing the effects that points have on your account?
I think what he's saying is that points below the threshold have no effect on your account.

So, the first two warnings* issue 0 or 5-20 points which in themselves would have no effect.


*So far as I can tell, the reason we've used the term "warn" is because that's just what the label says. Perhaps "infraction" would be a better term. We didn't say "warn" to mislead, but rather just because that's what the system is called.
My creations

Please direct moderation-related PMs to Forum Staff.

Offline Sinfire Titan

  • Hustler 3
  • Retired Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 1443
  • You have one round to give a rat's ass.
    • View Profile
Re: Criticism of Moderation
« Reply #96 on: December 09, 2011, 12:51:42 PM »
Sinfire: Is that the current policy, or the new one? And if the point warning has no impact on your account, why is it immediately followed by describing the effects that points have on your account?

It is the current one. Getting 5 points does nothing. Getting 10-25 points puts you on the Moderator Watch List. 30+, see above.
Concerned about how moderation works here? Please PM this account.

Offline Basket Burner

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1072
  • I break Basket Weavers.
    • View Profile
Re: Criticism of Moderation
« Reply #97 on: December 09, 2011, 01:33:55 PM »
And if the point warning has no impact on your account, why is it immediately followed by describing the effects that points have on your account?
I think what he's saying is that points below the threshold have no effect on your account.

So, the first two warnings* issue 0 or 5-20 points which in themselves would have no effect.


*So far as I can tell, the reason we've used the term "warn" is because that's just what the label says. Perhaps "infraction" would be a better term. We didn't say "warn" to mislead, but rather just because that's what the system is called.

That makes a lot more sense. Can I get a private message indicating what my own status is?

Offline awaken_D_M_golem

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7639
  • classique style , invisible tail
    • View Profile
Re: Criticism of Moderation
« Reply #98 on: December 09, 2011, 03:25:30 PM »


Uhh ... you have a recognition of 8 ... and you have a Hero Member.
Your codpiece is a mimic.

Offline ImperatorK

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2313
  • Chara did nothing wrong.
    • View Profile
    • Kristof Imperator YouTube Channel
Re: Criticism of Moderation
« Reply #99 on: December 12, 2011, 06:52:57 PM »
*ekhem*
You guys strayed waaay off topic. Care to go back, or shut up? :flutter
Magic is for weaklings.

Alucard: "*snif snif* Huh? Suddenly it reeks of hypocrisy in here. Oh, if it isn't the Catholic Church. And what's this? No little Timmy glued to your crotch. Progress!"
My YT channel - LoL gameplay