I've sent you a PM regarding this, about how these two different approaches put together on the same forum actually results in the moderation being more unfair for everyone.n0e said:
Individually, they're fine. But put together, they're not.
New Code of Conduct
- Thread starter n0e
- Start date
Individually, they're fine. But put together, they're not.
If that is not what you meant then I genuinely don't understand what you are getting at. It was not a strawman, it is what I thought you meant. If you don't want to clarify/retype 2 lines of text that's fine, I'll go on being mystified and wondering where your hostility has come from.NXNW said:
I know they're moderators from another forum that you are really familiar with, but the majority of users don't know them - to us, they are new moderators.n0e said:
Yup, inconsistencies happen as you are all only human (one assumes - I still wonder about Kross, his bubblebreaker thread is inhumane). The issue comes from the fact that there have been several fractures in the Escapist community over the last few years and the moderation team has taken a lot of knocks from multiple perspectives as a result. As such, the appearance of inconsistencies is a bit of a hot issue. Taking an even longer view, the moderation has swung between hands-on and hands-off and back again over the years as both the mod team and the CoC has changed and seeing the same issues come up time and again is a bit frustrating for long-term users. Like I said, you're in a bit of a catch-22 and I hope things shake out for the better.
To finish, in my experience the health-bar system is like Churchill's view on democracy: "that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time".
If I may, I think probably the main reason why there appears to be trust issues from the users is that we've heard all this before. We've been told before to "trust the mods" and that they're "only human" and all the rest. But unfortunately we later learned that a moderator betrayed that trust and was subsequently removed from their position. (Ironically, this same moderator was one of the people who'd previously told us to "trust them").
So really, it's to be expected that users might naturally be weary and cautious, when they hear that same spiel again the next time around, due to having bad memories of what happened last time.
So really, it's to be expected that users might naturally be weary and cautious, when they hear that same spiel again the next time around, due to having bad memories of what happened last time.
Ah, there are a number of ways to do that. I think that Filetrekker and I are mostly in agreement on changes to the CMS, at least I've not read anything of his that I disagree with. I'm not precisely sure where you're seeing the inconsistency :/Superbeast said:
I certainly wouldn't want to just remove the health-bar system and put nothing in its place. You can't just turn things off and be like 'totes fixed now!' without any understanding of what they were there to manage. But... we've done this before, for a long time, without a health bar system. And the procedures and tools we had in place instead led to somewhere fair enough that people have come there to have sensitive discussions because we had a reputation for being fair.
Like one way of doing it goes something like:
[hr]
A) Each reported post automatically generates its own thread in a sub- forum of the staff forums. Any future reports of that post go into that thread, and the reasons that users reported a post are posted as part of that thread by the system. We know that this is a good way of keeping track of what users think about posts, and what staff think about posts, by filtering user reports through into those threads and mandating that staff post in those threads when they respond to the reports. That provides both an open record of learning, since new staff can read through old reports and see old discussions, and an open invitation for feedback from more senior staff if something seems particularly egregious.
B) Implement a more comprehensive usernote system, such that people can take verbatim notes in much the same manner that you can make a post in a normal thread. One has those tied to each user account with general staff access - so that, for instance, I could post the details of a private message that I'd sent to a user for future reference by other moderators. That way, if someone is talked to about an issue, it can be more meaningfully followed up on by other mods.
C) Have some sort of tiered staff hierarchy. Once you have that sort of setup in place you can be quite happy, as a moderator, handing over the ability to ban people to n0e or Filetrekker or someone like that because you've got procedures and tools that if followed generate adequate documentation of attempts to talk to a user. I've moderated without that ability before and it's gone fine. I currently have that ability on other forums, having been around long enough and acted well enough to be trusted with it, but I don't think there's any pressing need for the first point of contact in a forum to have the ability to ban folks.
D) Have some guidelines for lengths of ban. Perhaps not strictly adhered to, but if someone wants to ask for a two week ban when the guideline is that the first ban is three days... well, there's gonna be questions asked... they'd have to justify it to someone other than themselves.
[hr]
I'm not saying that's the only way to manage things without a health bar system, and I'm not saying it's what we're going to end up with. If I had to suggest something it would probably be analogous to that, but for the purposes of this post I'm purely saying that it's a way to do things that provides a level of fairness and accountability.
A health bar may also seem to provide a degree of safety, but I think I've covered how it can be exploited. There is no piece of software that you, I, or anyone else can write that will enforce decency short, I suspect, of a general purpose AI. There are certainly pieces of software that make it more or less natural to behave decently, but that's not quite the same thing.
I mean look, in a way I don't really care if you have a health bar; a set of green lights that tracks how many bans or whatever you've had. It doesn't make a whole lot of difference to my mind whether it's just generally known what the proportional penalties are or whether someone hangs a number and some coloured lights off it. That's... bunting, more or less. But if you're running everything through that system... including basic communication... with automatic penalties[footnote]I don't think that just talking to a user, warning them about a post in a way that generates a record, should increment that counter - because that places a cost on communication and it goes against the idea that things can be talked out. And since communication is a two way thing that kinda needs not to come from 'system' too. Running everything via that isn't great....[/footnote] whenever that system is used, and don't have too much built around that to actually manage how your procedures are going to work, that comes with certain forms of interaction that are going to be more natural to reach for than others.
That's why I'm not a fan of it as a system, if that makes sense to you? Sure have a rule that's four strikes and then you're banned, whatever. Have four coloured lights if you feel better about it. But if you do, then that's a place you start, you've got to build the stuff behind that as well.
I could be wrong about this, but I am fairly certain the automated health bar system was implemented at a time when this community had significantly more traffic. So much so that it was nearly impossible to give every individual case the attention it needed. This place has shrunk and mellowed out significantly since then, so if you think a more hands-on approach is feasible now I don't think anyone will fight you on it. That said, there are plenty of people around here that wouldn't even be satisfied if you guys had a straight-up forum complaint hotline (like the red Batman telephone, lol).Nemmerle said:
The biggest problem I have is if we have a case where moderator(s) are not adhering to the healthbar system, while at the same time there are other mods who are adhering to it, it becomes a bit of a problem. As I said a few posts up, pick one option or pick the other, don't mix them together.Fappy said:
Because otherwise you end up with cases where a "Mod Voice" warning is given in lieu of an actual warning, and when enough of these "Mod Voice" warnings are given out, someone is insta-suspended consuming all 4 of their healthbar warnings in one go.
If the warning buffer on healthbars isn't being utilized, then get rid of it. Chop everyone's healthbars in half and discard the first half. Because otherwise some people are getting 8 chances, whilst others are only getting... what, 4? 5?
I thought the whole point of the healthbar system was to make it so everyone gets the same number of chances? If we have situations where a single infraction eats up half of someone's entire healthbar in one go, then this entire section of the COC needs to be reworded, because it's wrong:
Warning (Green)
Warnings do not negatively impact your account but will stack against you for penalties. You may accrue up to 4 warnings before it automatically becomes probation.
Probation (Yellow)
This is your final warning. All penalties after this will be suspensions, and all badges for good behavior will be negated.
3-day Suspension (Red)
You will be unable to post in the forums for three days, and all badges for good behavior will be negated.
2-week Suspension (Red)
You will be unable to post in the forums for two weeks, and all badges for good behavior will be negated.
Permanent Ban (Red)
Your posting rights on the site, as well as other methods of community participation, will be revoked permanently.
Warnings do not negatively impact your account but will stack against you for penalties. You may accrue up to 4 warnings before it automatically becomes probation.
Probation (Yellow)
This is your final warning. All penalties after this will be suspensions, and all badges for good behavior will be negated.
3-day Suspension (Red)
You will be unable to post in the forums for three days, and all badges for good behavior will be negated.
2-week Suspension (Red)
You will be unable to post in the forums for two weeks, and all badges for good behavior will be negated.
Permanent Ban (Red)
Your posting rights on the site, as well as other methods of community participation, will be revoked permanently.
The point you've mentioned there should probably be raising a few more eyebrows. Just saying.NewClassic said:
Typically, if you've been told to drop a topic, and think it's worth continuing, what you'd want to do would be to talk to the mod who suggested that first and say why you think the topic should continue. If you create a good argument for that, then the mod might - for instance - suggest that you start a thread specifically to discuss that issue - or they might make one for you with some ground rules that help to resolve some of the problems that the original had if it's something that can be managed that way.
If that doesn't work, then I'd suggest speaking to n0e or one of the other community managers explaining why you think that the issue should continue.
If that doesn't work, then I'd suggest speaking to n0e or one of the other community managers explaining why you think that the issue should continue.
Just speaking from personal life experience, but I can't see the benefit in arguing too much with the people who run the forum you're on. Whatever you might win in the short run, you're losing in the long run. These are all people we want to get along with, and want to get along with us. If they put themselves out there publicly to say "Stop", then unless it was something truly unreasonable it's hard to imagine their bosses not having their back. They wouldn't actually be good bosses if they didn't.
I'm not certain I understand how I'm questioning NXNW's honesty.Lacedaemonius said:
The whole point of that post was to acknowledge that we're all kind of operating blind here. Moderation has difficulty understanding the wants and desires of a highly critical new user because we have little information to go off of, and new users have only a thread full of disagreement as to what sort of tone moderation will ultimately take following a change in the Code of Conduct. There's a lot of uncertainty there, and I don't feel like pointing that out while also acknowledging the hostility around the discussion is accusing anyone of being dishonest.
That said, people are free to feel however they'd want, I don't think I'm amiss in asking that people do it in a way that doesn't make getting to the point of the discussion more difficult. If I have to check my emotions at the door in every conversation I have with people, then I'm sure as hell not going to feel like a member of the community anymore. And I certainly don't want to be disconnected from anyone when it's my job to make sure the connections this forum fosters aren't being abused.
You're correct to point out that the existing environment of hostility on the Escapist forums in regard to moderation, but an existing environment of hostility isn't grounds to continue to perpetuate it. Phrases like "seems like an extreme vacation of personal responsibility" and "all you've done ... is turn my opinion ... to something a lot less charitable" are not an acceptable tone to take in discussions on the Escapist forums.NXNW said:
If you feel the current standards and practices of the Escapist are in error, please use the Contact Page [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/contact/] or in messaging to the community manager, [user]n0e[/user]. However, this is a thread to discuss the Code of Conduct, not to air grievances with moderation. Further elaboration on the subject will result in moderator action.
Yes. If the standard is 'ever', then you can totally get in trouble for that. If you claim to speak for the community or otherwise imply an authority or use voices that are not your own, that's the most obvious way to do it.Caramel Frappe said:
Drawing from your last post...
For myself: It's not ideal but in the circumstances it's understandable and it's civil enough. I'd let that pass. The sort of thing that if someone reported it I'd probably decide no further action was warranted. Someone makes jokes about rape they've got to be aware that they run certain risks of people not finding it funny. That's on them.
Ya' know, there's gonna be some light ribbing on any forum, as long as it's kept to a reasonable level it's not really a problem unless it forms a trend.
That's the bit you'd run most of the risk with in my books. It's acting as if you're an authority and claiming to represent others who you do not necessarily represent. If the mods do anything about it following up on that, then it puts them in a bad position as it seems partial towards particular users and viewpoints.
You pushed the Red Button, sounds like. Shouldn'ta done that.42616e20446f64676572 said:
Put simply, it was a prank badge handed out some years back (for April Fools, I think?) that was popular enough to stick around. If you click the button, everything is Bieber for a time.
Pretty sure it wears off on its own after an amount of time, but I don't know how long, exactly. Never touched it, myself.
