New Code of Conduct

[StatusNil]

One of the big limitations of an infraction system is that it runs into death by a thousand cuts. Something doesn't have to be serious enough to ban someone over, it just has to be serious enough to impose an infraction over and the system automatically imposes a ban once someone's reached a certain point. Indeed, once the user has reached a certain point it doesn't look like you can impose an infraction without banning someone - it may be possible, I haven't drilled down into the tools a great distance - that's the least that the system will let you do.

You wouldn't be justifying banning someone, you'd be justifying that one thing they'd said was bad enough to attract an infraction.

Needless to say, I'm not a big fan of it. If you're talking to someone about their behaviour, they don't need something explained eight times in a relatively short space of time before it becomes apparent they're not playing ball. If you're not talking to them, then it's all too easy for them to attract the critical value of infractions over a year or two, which individually aren't worth more than a talking to and a reminder not to do the thing.

Moderating only works, in the sense of improving behaviours rather than in the sense of banning people, if you can get some sort of accountability and communication going on between users and staff. If that's not possible, you may as well forget it and go home.

I'm glad to see these things are now being given serious thought. I've argued for a long time that the gamification of the disciplinary system has somewhat predictably led to it being extensively gamed, in what I like to call "Forum Team Death Match" because it's most effectively played in teams. Possibly to the point it's become the dominant paradigm for some subsections of these forums. And once the game becomes the norm, it gets really hard for people to keep out of it, no matter what their original intentions in getting involved in whatever controversies supposedly occasioned it. Discussion in good faith itself becomes something out of place, hopelessly naive or suspect.

Having said that, I sure know how to pick at the flaws of a given system, but it's not like I have some definitive fix in mind. The system in place does have its own virtues that I can certainly appreciate, having seen moderation teams at other, inferior sites who just unceremoniously disappear comments that don't appeal to them for some reason down the memory hole, with no accountability or even notice. Having a procedure in place is a major step up from such arbitrariness, but may be subverted to more vicious ends by manipulation.

Oh well, I have been trying to come up with a more substantive contribution to this line of deliberation here for a while now, but it doesn't seem to be happening at the moment. So with that, I guess I'm done for the moment. Like I said, it's just nice to see people actually wrestling with the beast that is the theory and praxis of moderation.

 

[Drathnoxis]

One of the big limitations of an infraction system is that it runs into death by a thousand cuts. Something doesn't have to be serious enough to ban someone over, it just has to be serious enough to impose an infraction over and the system automatically imposes a ban once someone's reached a certain point. Indeed, once the user has reached a certain point it doesn't look like you can impose an infraction without banning someone - it may be possible, I haven't drilled down into the tools a great distance - that's the least that the system will let you do.

You wouldn't be justifying banning someone, you'd be justifying that one thing they'd said was bad enough to attract an infraction.

Needless to say, I'm not a big fan of it. If you're talking to someone about their behaviour, they don't need something explained eight times in a relatively short space of time before it becomes apparent they're not playing ball. If you're not talking to them, then it's all too easy for them to attract the critical value of infractions over a year or two, which individually aren't worth more than a talking to and a reminder not to do the thing.

Moderating only works, in the sense of improving behaviours rather than in the sense of banning people, if you can get some sort of accountability and communication going on between users and staff. If that's not possible, you may as well forget it and go home.

For nearly 5 years users have been pointing out that the infraction system was broken, that the system was slanted against users who post more, that it was absurd for someone to be banned because of something like a low content post, that it was unrealistic to ask that people not slip up more than once every six months; and for nearly 5 years the response has been "If you can't figure out how to behave after being given 8 chances, we don't really want you as part of our community."(an actual quote from a previous editor in chief.)

It's sooooo good to be finally vindicated by the staff and mods! It's just too bad that, at this point, most users have either been banned or simply left the site.

 

[DoPo]

So, is there or is there not going to be an official ruling on off-topic for definite?

I've been asking for a week now...

 

[n0e]

However, my second question regarding off-topic (not the subforum) posting still stands: anything official?

What do you mean? Can you post off-topic responses in a thread?

 

[DoPo]

However, my second question regarding off-topic (not the subforum) posting still stands: anything official?

What do you mean? Can you post off-topic responses in a thread?

Off-Topic discussions. Interestingly, one appeared right in this thread[footnote]which reminded me to ask[/footnote] and the policy on these has never really been clear, yet most other forums I've been on, off-topic tends to be where the "minor issue offences" are if not just a tad lower - comments at least tangentially connected to the topic are certainly allowed and even one, two, or several would be tolerated but excessive offtopic posting is punished.

So, no, not really "can you post off-topic" because I know you can. The rules are not, and have never, been clear on how much this is tolerated, though. Or more precisely, they've never really mentioned anything about off-topic discussions nor even touched upon them in any way. While I know that in general the etiquette is "keep it short if it crops up", I was wondering if there was going to be an official ruling about it.

 

[Superbeast]

For nearly 5 years users have been pointing out that the infraction system was broken, that the system was slanted against users who post more, that it was absurd for someone to be banned because of something like a low content post, that it was unrealistic to ask that people not slip up more than once every six months; and for nearly 5 years the response has been "If you can't figure out how to behave after being given 8 chances, we don't really want you as part of our community."(an actual quote from a previous editor in chief.)

It's sooooo good to be finally vindicated by the staff and mods! It's just too bad that, at this point, most users have either been banned or simply left the site.

This attitude bugs me - I admit that I am not a prolific poster, but I've been here for 8 years and never had a single warning or the like; most of my posting has been in the Religion and Politics section, a known hot-bed for attracting moderator wrath.

I agree with the precious Editor-in-Chief, if you can't learn the rules the previous 7 times you've attracted a warning then you're likely to never learn and will continue to break the rules indefinitely. Given the recent changes to the CoC (and not just this re-vamp, things like low content not being enforced for a good while now), I don't see how this complaint really has much merit. If you can't post without insulting users or advocating illegal activities (and adblock) then frankly after 7 warnings you shouldn't be a part of the community.

 

[IceForce]

For nearly 5 years users have been pointing out that the infraction system was broken, that the system was slanted against users who post more, that it was absurd for someone to be banned because of something like a low content post, that it was unrealistic to ask that people not slip up more than once every six months; and for nearly 5 years the response has been "If you can't figure out how to behave after being given 8 chances, we don't really want you as part of our community."(an actual quote from a previous editor in chief.)

It's sooooo good to be finally vindicated by the staff and mods! It's just too bad that, at this point, most users have either been banned or simply left the site.

This attitude bugs me - I admit that I am not a prolific poster, but I've been here for 8 years and never had a single warning or the like; most of my posting has been in the Religion and Politics section, a known hot-bed for attracting moderator wrath.

I agree with the precious Editor-in-Chief, if you can't learn the rules the previous 7 times you've attracted a warning then you're likely to never learn and will continue to break the rules indefinitely. Given the recent changes to the CoC (and not just this re-vamp, things like low content not being enforced for a good while now), I don't see how this complaint really has much merit. If you can't post without insulting users or advocating illegal activities (and adblock) then frankly after 7 warnings you shouldn't be a part of the community.

A year ago, I would've agreed with you. But not anymore.

It's exceedingly easy for a moderator to contrive 8 different things you've done wrong. (I speak from experience, EDIT: The rest of this removed, at staff request.)

Furthermore, the system is set up in such a way that the more infractions they stack on top of you, the harder and harder it is to get rid of the previous ones, (short of halting your posting altogether).

 

[Superbeast]

A year ago, I would've agreed with you. But not anymore.

It's exceedingly easy for a moderator to contrive 8 different things you've done wrong. I speak from experience, having been on the receiving end of a seemingly endless stream of incorrect infractions. (If it wasn't for the appeals system, I would've been banned 3 times over by now.)

Furthermore, the system is set up in such a way that the more infractions they stack on top of you, the harder and harder it is to get rid of the previous ones, (short of halting your posting altogether).

This seems to be an issue of personality, rather than an issue with the system itself. Surely the fact there is an appeals system that works undercuts your argument? The fact that, as you say, you are still here despite an apparent intentional effort to remove you? Also, I hope you were able to work with the staff to have whichever moderator(s) were persecuting you removed from the site for abuse of power?

Would having a system that doesn't have the health-bar really have prevented your issues? I am reasonably certain that it used to be that a mod could straight up suspend/ban someone without prior offences, or that any lower offences were purely detailed behind-the-scenes, before the health bar was brought in.

 

[n0e]

However, my second question regarding off-topic (not the subforum) posting still stands: anything official?

What do you mean? Can you post off-topic responses in a thread?

Off-Topic discussions. Interestingly, one appeared right in this thread[footnote]which reminded me to ask[/footnote] and the policy on these has never really been clear, yet most other forums I've been on, off-topic tends to be where the "minor issue offences" are if not just a tad lower - comments at least tangentially connected to the topic are certainly allowed and even one, two, or several would be tolerated but excessive offtopic posting is punished.

So, no, not really "can you post off-topic" because I know you can. The rules are not, and have never, been clear on how much this is tolerated, though. Or more precisely, they've never really mentioned anything about off-topic discussions nor even touched upon them in any way. While I know that in general the etiquette is "keep it short if it crops up", I was wondering if there was going to be an official ruling about it.

There really can't be. It would fall under the Minor Issue Offenses of the Code of Conduct, as you've suggested. We (moderators and staff) may ask you to switch back to the main topic in case it's getting a bit out of hand, but, unless you're doing it for the sole purpose of switching the topic, and you do so consistently, you shouldn't have anything to worry about.

tl;dr - It's not that big of a deal and falls under moderator discretion of what would happen when it's noticed.

 

[n0e]

A year ago, I would've agreed with you. But not anymore.

It's exceedingly easy for a moderator to contrive 8 different things you've done wrong. (I speak from experience, having been on the receiving end of a seemingly endless stream of erroneous infractions. If it wasn't for the appeals system, I would've been banned 3 times over by now.)

Furthermore, the system is set up in such a way that the more infractions they stack on top of you, the harder and harder it is to get rid of the previous ones, (short of halting your posting altogether).

I'm not overly fond of the insinuation that a moderator or moderators have it in for you. You're making it sound as if the moderators just decide to lay infractions on you when they get bored or out of spite for whatever reason. Let me ask you this, why would they bother? I'm not trying to be rude. I'm simply saying we have better things to do on the forums than single out a user and give them a hard time. It doesn't really make sense.

It's easy to point the finger at those that have the tough job of keeping the peace around an internet forum and say they're oppressive and conspiracy this and that, but maybe you should ask yourself, "why does it keep happening to me?" I'm asking this quite honestly and without malice. The blame game from a few of the users here seems to try and say it's the moderators and their oppressive actions that are causing all of the issues. But no one, not one, seems to understand that maybe, just maybe, it could be what they said and it merited moderator action. Don't forget that other users to report posts.

So please, stop with the subtle blame game against the moderators and staff.

Thanks

 

[IceForce]

Thanks

Alright, fair do's. Apologies.

 

[Silvanus]

It's easy to point the finger at those that have the tough job of keeping the peace around an internet forum and say they're oppressive and conspiracy this and that, but maybe you should ask yourself, "why does it keep happening to me?" I'm asking this quite honestly and without malice. The blame game from a few of the users here seems to try and say it's the moderators and their oppressive actions that are causing all of the issues. But no one, not one, seems to understand that maybe, just maybe, it could be what they said and it merited moderator action. Don't forget that other users to report posts.

In fairness, the moderators also don't seem to agree that the action merited moderator action, which is why there have been over a dozen overturned.

 

[IceForce]

In fairness, the moderators also don't seem to agree that the action merited moderator action, which is why there have been over a dozen overturned.

'Overturns' are handled by the staff, not the moderators. So it's more a case of the moderators believing a rule was infringed on, and the staff disagreeing with that assessment.

 

[Silvanus]

'Overturns' are handled by the staff, not the moderators. So it's more a case of the moderators believing a rule was infringed on, and the staff disagreeing with that assessment.

Fair enough.

Not my fault I don't have such an intimate knowledge of the procedure-- my record is squeaky clean, after all. You monster.

 

[Superbeast]

That's a healthy attitude from a booming business, which I gather from the discussion here and closure of GT that this ain't. In the real world, where this is a business trying to make money and not a private club for a very few...

I don't understand what you are getting at. Are you saying that it is bad for business to have rules enforced? If so, what is bad for business is letting disruptive people, who are going to be upsetting the people they are insulting (and thus accuing warnings) and possibly driving their victims from the website, remain and give a bad name to the brand. If not, could you explain what you meant?

 

[Superbeast]

[...] You're making it sound as if the moderators just decide to lay infractions on you when they get bored or out of spite for whatever reason. Let me ask you this, why would they bother? I'm not trying to be rude. I'm simply saying we have better things to do on the forums than single out a user and give them a hard time. It doesn't really make sense.

I appreciate you may not want to talk about this, in which case I'll drop it or we can discuss via PM, but it is a bit odd to see you say this just a few posts after this:

If I wanted to ban people, I'd just say nothing when they misbehaved. I'd stack up the infractions against folks and count the bans. That is not a hard thing to do. [...] considering some of the concerns around here I take it as essentially general knowledge that this is a pattern that works...
[...]
Five seconds to type 'Don't be an asshat', wait a couple of days and type it again. No real explanation about why someone's being taken to be an asshat, and I could do that essentially at will.

Now, Nemmerle was clearly talking hypothetically, said it wouldn't be worthwhile, and was discussing the flaws of the current system, but a new moderator has just explained in detail how easy it is for the system to be manipulated by a mod if they wanted to.

This is a great example of how the [/i]tone[/i] of inconsistency can come across from otherwise well-meaning posts, and highlights why some users feel there are severe issues of consistency in moderation. Naturally nothing moderation-wise has actually occurred but hopefully it shows why people may pick up feelings of bias or inconsistency even when there is none. One hopes that this redeveloped Code of Conduct and additional moderators from off-site will allay such fears among the user-base over time.

I noticed in a later post (#305) Nemmerle talked about not being a fan of the health-bar system, and I am intrigued and a little concerned about what thoughts the moderators/admins/techs have in regards to changing it as FileTrekker suggested in post #307. I was a member of this website before the health-bar was implemented and I feel the prior situation led to worse accusations of inconsistency and bias as (if I remember correctly) the length of punishments were left up to the discretion of each moderator. I know you folks end up in a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't situation when it comes to all things moderation, but I personally really like the health-bar system as it gives a structure to the moderation with 4 warnings and then increasing length suspensions before a permanent ban, with appropriate appeals along the way.

 

[n0e]

[...] You're making it sound as if the moderators just decide to lay infractions on you when they get bored or out of spite for whatever reason. Let me ask you this, why would they bother? I'm not trying to be rude. I'm simply saying we have better things to do on the forums than single out a user and give them a hard time. It doesn't really make sense.

I appreciate you may not want to talk about this, in which case I'll drop it or we can discuss via PM, but it is a bit odd to see you say this just a few posts after this:

If I wanted to ban people, I'd just say nothing when they misbehaved. I'd stack up the infractions against folks and count the bans. That is not a hard thing to do. [...] considering some of the concerns around here I take it as essentially general knowledge that this is a pattern that works...
[...]
Five seconds to type 'Don't be an asshat', wait a couple of days and type it again. No real explanation about why someone's being taken to be an asshat, and I could do that essentially at will.

Now, Nemmerle was clearly talking hypothetically, said it wouldn't be worthwhile, and was discussing the flaws of the current system, but a new moderator has just explained in detail how easy it is for the system to be manipulated by a mod if they wanted to.

Nem may be new here, but he's been a moderator for quite a long time. He was simply stating that, if he wanted to be a dick, he could. However, he's trying to show that moderators have the tools to do so, but not the lack of common sense to abuse them. [user]Filetrekker[/user] and [user]Nemmerle[/user] are two veteran moderators from the GameFront Forums. FileTrekker is actually one of the admins there. He's earned enough of my trust that I feel just fine with him having the same level of access I do. Nem is a supermod, which is about the same level as a moderator here.

This is a great example of how the tone of inconsistency can come across from otherwise well-meaning posts, and highlights why some users feel there are severe issues of consistency in moderation. Naturally nothing moderation-wise has actually occurred but hopefully it shows why people may pick up feelings of bias or inconsistency even when there is none. One hopes that this redeveloped Code of Conduct and additional moderators from off-site will allay such fears among the user-base over time.

I noticed in a later post (#305) Nemmerle talked about not being a fan of the health-bar system, and I am intrigued and a little concerned about what thoughts the moderators/admins/techs have in regards to changing it as FileTrekker suggested in post #307. I was a member of this website before the health-bar was implemented and I feel the prior situation led to worse accusations of inconsistency and bias as (if I remember correctly) the length of punishments were left up to the discretion of each moderator. I know you folks end up in a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't situation when it comes to all things moderation, but I personally really like the health-bar system as it gives a structure to the moderation with 4 warnings and then increasing length suspensions before a permanent ban, with appropriate appeals along the way.

The inconsistency they're showing is simply a matter of personal opinion. FileTrekker sees the merit in the design that we use here, while Nemmerle feels a more hands-on approach is the way to go. Each moderator follows the Code of Conduct here despite any personal thoughts on it one way or another, they're simply stating their own personal thoughts on the matter.

Most of us use IRC to communicate to one another through while we're working on the site with our various responsibilities. While there, if we feel we need help with a thread/post/user we ask there and get advice from the others in the channel. The inconsistency will always happen to one level or another because not everyone is the same person. We're all humans and have differing values of what is and isn't worth taking action on. We do try to keep those inconsistencies down to a minimal level, but they do happen. We have an appeals system for this very reason to try and keep the actions as balanced as possible.

 

[n0e]

You said it, Nemmerle "Earned" your trust over time. Why do you expect the process to be any different for other people? Why should people who don't know you from Adam, trust you at all when we have it on good authority (from a person you trust) that we have no way to verify that trust should it be abused, in a system that admittedly needs to be redone, but isn't because of tech?

If you don't trust us, that's your business. Of course we want you to trust us, but we certainly cannot make you do it.

We're going to do our jobs as we feel they must be done that helps cultivate this community with perpetual growth and civilized discussion. Using our position to abuse our authority works against that doctrine. Base your trust on the actions of those that are currently here, not on those that are long gone. It's unfair to do so otherwise.

 

[NewClassic_v1legacy]

If you want to make a new start, you need to do something new, not just say new things. I have to imagine that a reworded code of conduct and new faces doing the same things seems like more of the same, even if it isn't. The tone as it vacillates between extremely friendly and "Take it or leave it" could also use some work, just from the standpoint of pure professionalism.

But at the same time, there is a constant level of give-and-take that has to exist with any disciplinary system. You say there's no reason to trust, but you also seem to think there's no reason to have any courtesy about your criticisms either. Simply because trust doesn't appear in a vacuum doesn't mean it can't be extended, and yet here you are with a six day old account telling the community management (and his selected mods by proxy) that their work is inherently suspicious.

I mean, you're not wrong for having an opinion, but also consider that you're doing us wrong by assuming we're all innately guilty until proven not just innocent, but stalwart and trustworthy. You're setting us up to fail, and doing so without apology and without even having given us a chance.

I understand authority is inherently dangerous, but treating us like we're set mousetraps you're observing from afar does very little to give us a reason to feel like we can earn your trust. Instead, your hypothesis is that we're waiting to find a reason to abuse our authority, and the only confirmation you see is one that hopes to validate your fears. From our positions, we can only either excel beyond measure, or fail. That's a very crappy position to be in.

That said, I might implore you to consider how this looks from our end as well.

We have no reason to assume that you have any intention for either goodwill or ill-will on our works, but our limited frames of reference for you seem to imply that you'll have a bone to pick with moderation and our community practices. As little joy as I get out of being in the role of disciplinarian, I'm asking for this to be a subject that should be treated a little more civilly in the future.

You're fostering a hell of an environment for moderation, and it's making it difficult to feel like we can speak with you without feeling like we're at the wrong end of a firing squad. Tone the "you could use some work"-style commentary down, please. We're all persons behind the monitors, here, and it would be nice to be addressed in a way that doesn't make us or you feel like we have to prove ourselves to the other in order to get anywhere.

 

[Lacedaemonius]

If you want to make a new start, you need to do something new, not just say new things. I have to imagine that a reworded code of conduct and new faces doing the same things seems like more of the same, even if it isn't. The tone as it vacillates between extremely friendly and "Take it or leave it" could also use some work, just from the standpoint of pure professionalism.

But at the same time, there is a constant level of give-and-take that has to exist with any disciplinary system. You say there's no reason to trust, but you also seem to think there's no reason to have any courtesy about your criticisms either. Simply because trust doesn't appear in a vacuum doesn't mean it can't be extended, and yet here you are with a six day old account telling the community management (and his selected mods by proxy) that their work is inherently suspicious.

I mean, you're not wrong for having an opinion, but also consider that you're doing us wrong by assuming we're all innately guilty until proven not just innocent, but stalwart and trustworthy. You're setting us up to fail, and doing so without apology and without even having given us a chance.

I understand authority is inherently dangerous, but treating us like we're set mousetraps you're observing from afar does very little to give us a reason to feel like we can earn your trust. Instead, your hypothesis is that we're waiting to find a reason to abuse our authority, and the only confirmation you see is one that hopes to validate your fears. From our positions, we can only either excel beyond measure, or fail. That's a very crappy position to be in.

That said, I might implore you to consider how this looks from our end as well.

We have no reason to assume that you have any intention for either goodwill or ill-will on our works, but our limited frames of reference for you seem to imply that you'll have a bone to pick with moderation and our community practices. As little joy as I get out of being in the role of disciplinarian, I'm asking for this to be a subject that should be treated a little more civilly in the future.

You're fostering a hell of an environment for moderation, and it's making it difficult to feel like we can speak with you without feeling like we're at the wrong end of a firing squad. Tone the "you could use some work"-style commentary down, please. We're all persons behind the monitors, here, and it would be nice to be addressed in a way that doesn't make us or you feel like we have to prove ourselves to the other in order to get anywhere.

I agree that a more open and mutually understanding attitude would be good from everyone, and I don't see how question anyone's honesty is the start of anything good either. The part about the environment and feeling hunted, that seems more like how people here are feeling about moderation? After all, they're literally facing the "firing squad" of bans, if I've read these 10 pages right. You are just facing criticism, and I've seen that get shut down with a hard word. It's hard to feel a lot of sympathy when you have all of the power in the relationship, and your firing squad can only use hurtful words. Which you can then punish them for using.

I think rather than spending this much time telling people to act nicer, and "we have a plan", and maybe you should let people in on what your plans are. Give them something constructive to get into, or make them part of a process of fixing what's wrong. I think you're asking too much if you expect people to just trust, and not verify though.