Poll: A Proposal for Better Moderation

[Roxas1359]

These were my thoughts exactly when seeing that list of the banned. Only I thought that for a lot more users on that list.

[hr]

Ah so I wasn't the only one who thought the same thing. A lot of users on that list I recognized for the massive forum drama and controversies they caused that's for sure. Hell, I find it funny that the OP put TheNecroswanson on the list because he was banned before I even officially joined.

OT: Moderation isn't perfect, but I still say that it's just fine. As others have said it's actually gotten pretty lax over time, which sucks when those who abuse that are more prevalent with passive-aggressive attitudes.

 

[Colour Scientist]

Oh no, we lost such great users as Scrumpmonkey and Ultratwinkie. However will we cope?

Harsh!


That is cold, Andy Shandy, so cold. XD

 

[DEAD34345]

Honestly I feel that when you register to this site, you read a team and condition aka the Code of Conducts before you fully register therefore you only have yourself to blame for getting a warming and you don't know why.

Seriously it is not hard to get a warming if you understand the code of conduct unless you really are intended to act like a jerk or still compell a incredible short comment or still want to comment on a year old thread.

That brings up the question though, have most people actually read the code of conduct? I haven't,[footnote]Unless not reading the code of conduct is against the code of conduct, in which case I totally have.[/footnote] and frankly I'd assume most people haven't.

Nothing against this site specifically or it's CoC, but when every single website, piece of software and even physical object in the universe has a multiple page document it demands you read before using it, eventually you just give up. Either that or you waste your whole life consuming nothing but legalese[footnote]Woah, that's a real word?[/footnote] and devolve into that most hideous of creatures, a lawyer.

That said, the moderation seems fine to me. I disagree with one or two of the rules forbidding discussion of certain topics, but other than that everything seems reasonable enough. It's about as lenient as it could possibly be without reducing the forum into an anarchic mess like many other other sites, which means they've hit the perfect spot as far as I'm concerned. That's one of the main reasons I stick with this site, in fact.

 

[Andy Shandy]

Oh no, we lost such great users as Scrumpmonkey and Ultratwinkie. However will we cope?

These were my thoughts exactly when seeing that list of the banned. Only I thought that for a lot more users on that list.

These were my thoughts exactly when seeing that list of the banned. Only I thought that for a lot more users on that list.

[hr]

Ah so I wasn't the only one who thought the same thing.

Well I would've added more but then by that point, I would just be copy-pasting most of the list XD

Oh no, we lost such great users as Scrumpmonkey and Ultratwinkie. However will we cope?

Harsh!


That is cold, Andy Shandy, so cold. XD

I blame the recent snow. At first, it brought joy, after not being seen in these parts for so long. But it departed so quickly, it has left me cold and bitter. XD

 

[DirgeNovak]

Oh, great, another "mods are big meanies" thread.

I had one, count 'em, ONE warning in my seven years here, and I deserved it. Don't insult others, advocate piracy and Adblock or write three-word posts and they'll leave you the fuck alone.

And they already do have "discretion". Someone who posts something really horrible can have a bigger penalty. Really, getting banned after being warned/suspended EIGHT times is abusive? Maybe stop doing what you've been repeatedly told not to do instead of complaining about the mods?

 

[Teoes]

Also, there should be 4 options, just nobody voted for one of them.

My mistake on that bit then - it's a while since I voted and went with the closest fit. For the record, I voted that moderation was perfect; as mentioned I don't really think that's the case. If the fourth option was that your idea needs improvement then that's also not applicable to me.

 

[Zhukov]

I just browsed your list of "passionate and interesting posters."

Of those I recognize, I miss exactly one.

(Not counting people who requested bans or those who came back from the dead.)

Yeah, I'd say the current system is working just fine. And that's coming from someone who was once a single infraction away from a perma-ban.

 

[b3nn3tt]

Gonna jump in with the 'moderation is fine' crowd. I think the current system works just fine as it is, and if people are getting banned then they should see it coming, to some degree. People get eight chances before that, and if they can't work out how to avoid mod wrath by then, then they're probably not going to be missed.

I don't see any need to make the system more complicated, just so that people can continue to mess up in 'minor' ways for longer. I'm actually a fan of the low content rule, I don't think much is added to a discussion with just a few words to answer a question. I can appreciate the new method of allowing people to answer a straightforward question without having to add in any reasoning, but other than that I have no issues with the implementation of the rule.

It also brings up the issue that moderation would become very subjective, if mods were required to decide whether something was a 'serious' offence or not. As it is, mods have a list of rules, if those rules are broken, the user gets an infraction. Simple, and effective.

 

[Colour Scientist]

I just browsed your list of "passionate and interesting posters."

Of those I recognize, I miss exactly one.

(Not counting people who requested bans or those who came back from the dead.)

Yeah, I'd say the current system is working just fine. And that's coming from someone who was once a single infraction away from a perma-ban.

You were?

You're so well-behaved though!

Not the bees lady? I just realised the other day that a prolific poster was suddenly not posting.

I think she bailed at some point during the GG fallout because people were arseholes.

 

[Zhukov]

I just browsed your list of "passionate and interesting posters."

Of those I recognize, I miss exactly one.

(Not counting people who requested bans or those who came back from the dead.)

Yeah, I'd say the current system is working just fine. And that's coming from someone who was once a single infraction away from a perma-ban.

You were?

You're so well-behaved though!

You're joking, right?

Please tell me you're joking.

I try to keep my inner scathing arsehole in check, but I am not always successful. The times when I was mod-wrath'd were often well deserved.

 

[Colour Scientist]

I just browsed your list of "passionate and interesting posters."

Of those I recognize, I miss exactly one.

(Not counting people who requested bans or those who came back from the dead.)

Yeah, I'd say the current system is working just fine. And that's coming from someone who was once a single infraction away from a perma-ban.

You were?

You're so well-behaved though!

You're joking, right?

Please tell me you're joking.

I try to keep my inner scathing arsehole in check, but I am not always successful. The times when I was mod-wrath'd were often well deserved.

I've never personally seen you venture into rule-breaking territory.

You can be scathing and an arsehole but that's sometimes necessary on these forums.

 

[Barbas]

Not the bees lady? I just realised the other day that a prolific poster was suddenly not posting.

I think she bailed at some point during the GG fallout because people were arseholes.

She was accused of distributing child porn by another user and was harassed over Twitter. She's not coming back.

 

[Fiz_The_Toaster]

Out of that list of people I only miss seeing one of them around, but only a little. Hankman still got what he deserved for snapping like that.

I mean, if after 8 strikes you can't behave yourself then I don't really feel sorry for you. I think it's pretty lenient to have 8 chances to not mess up, and I know there are a few people out in the forums now that were on the edge of getting banned before they stopped behaving badly.

Overall, I'm fine with the moderation around here. Granted, it got super lax over the past several months and while I may not like it that way, I don't think it's the worst thing in the world.

 

[Barbas]

She was accused of distributing child porn by another user and was harassed over Twitter. She's not coming back.

Games are obviously a much more serious environment than I realised. Christ, I was just talking to Mrs B about how difficult I would find it to answer the favourite games A-Z in the games forum, because I always think about the games I grew up with, not the games I play now, even though they're technically much better. Not entirely sure what happened, but it is kind of shit.

It was specifically over the blog post about the 8chan boards. It's pretty terrible. I wish there was some way to coax people back when that happens, because they're the people we really need back...but at what cost to them?

 

[tippy2k2]

This is kind of what I'd like to see. A system where the people who contribute a lot, but still slip up once in a while (obviously it would have to be once in quite a while or they wouldn't be around very long) could get maybe a suspension of whatever length than a permanent ban. Even a year long suspension would be better than a permanent ban (which in my opinion should only be reserved for the most extreme cases and bots).

But I can't really think of a way that such a system would work on a site of this size.

Everyone seems to have made the point I want to make (if you can't figure it out in eight tries, this probably isn't the right forum for you) but this is something I want to touch on.

It does not happen often but that is also an option. I can think of two names off the top of my head (Zeel who got perma-banned again for going right back to being a dick and another person who is currently active but I don't know if she wants people to know so I will leave her nameless) who were banned for something and allowed back into the forum a year or so down the road when they asked the staff nicely if they could return.

 

[Barbas]

(Snip).

I kind of like that they give people that chance. Odds are that if you're patient enough to wait it out for a whole year, you've probably come to change the way you interact with people. If not, boom - shot behind the chemical sheds.

I think it's good that the CoC also says the banned do not have their health bars regenerate over time, because it doesn't get hopes up for quick forgiveness. So you get more effectively reformed posters. Hopefully.

 

[Drathnoxis]

Out of that list of people I only miss seeing one of them around, but only a little. Hankman still got what he deserved for snapping like that.

Wait, what? Hankman snapped?? I always thought his final infraction was low content.

Snip.

It does not happen often but that is also an option. I can think of two names off the top of my head (Zeel who got perma-banned again for going right back to being a dick and another person who is currently active but I don't know if she wants people to know so I will leave her nameless) who were banned for something and allowed back into the forum a year or so down the road when they asked the staff nicely if they could return.

Yeah, I knew about those. It'd be nice if it was more formalized in the rules so that people were aware it was an option. That is, if it even is an option. I know Zeel had some unclear circumstances surrounding his original ban and I thought that was the reason he was allowed back. And there was a big uproar when that other poster was banned, so I thought that was why she was brought back. But is it really so that anybody who was banned could ask to be let back in after a year and have an actual chance?

 

[Fiz_The_Toaster]

Out of that list of people I only miss seeing one of them around, but only a little. Hankman still got what he deserved for snapping like that.

Wait, what? Hankman snapped?? I always thought his final infraction was low content.

I think that's what happened to him.

I would investigate deeper, but I keep getting an error message every time I go into his profile.

*shrugs*

Oh well.

 

[FirstNameLastName]

I think the biggest problem with the site's moderation is the lack of uniformity and subjectiveness.

We have users who get away with being passive aggressive to an extreme degree.

I've even had a user threaten to "Set the mods on me" yet not receive any warning for such things.

On the other hand, I've been warned for implying somebody didn't understand a post I made.

So, yeah, the moderation is pretty... Off, overall, but, I doubt this suggestion will really help with that.

There's definitely a problem with extreme passive aggressiveness and smugness on these forums. Not to mention being absurdly snarky, sarcastic, condescending and virtually every other synonym for, "being an unbelievable arsehole while tiptoeing around the rules."

However, I'm not sure this is something that can be moderated. The criteria of what is and isn't an insult is dubious at best, and the criteria of what is and isn't "passive aggressive" would be even more shaky.

 

[Grouchy Imp_v1legacy]

The forum rules are clearly explained and we have a 'health meter' that recovers over time. If people get banned it's usually their own damn fault - even if provoked into an argument by another nothing is forcing a given user to reply. At the end of the day these forums operate on the old adage " If you don't have anything constructive to say don't say anything at all" and if people fall foul of that then that is ultimately their own fault. The rules are there for everyone, for everyone to obey, and people that can't do the same as the rest of us shouldn't be given a special 'extra life' just for flaunting the rules.