Poll: Injustice of the Permaban

[Marter]

Well how else are we supposed to express our agreement with the quoted post?

"I agree. Here is why:"

Or PM the person and tell them you agreed with what they said and have nothing more to add to the conversation.

 

[WouldYouKindly]

I quite agree with the strict rules here. You'll notice we're fairly short on trolls and pricks here. That's thanks to the good old permaban. It limits what you can say, but that just makes you calm down and handle things a bit more rationally. Most mods are pretty decent people. I even had a warning taken off my record by having a chat with the mod and finding out what he objected to. It was a generalization and I really should have qualified it correctly as a stereotype that I may or may not support.

Yep. The point is, if two people are quoting each other back and forth, whether they be arguing (hopefully civilly) over something, or two friends having some friendly banter, either way it's not really something we want to discourage (by way of the low content rule at least).

And yet I got a low content warning when quoting someone!

That isn't a conversation. Otherwise the people just saying "this" when quoting someone would be okay. And we don't need that.

Well how else are we supposed to express our agreement with the quoted post?

By adding to the conversation, one way or another. You can agree, then explain your reasoning.

 

[Marter]

Ah... I see...

I have a suggestion for you: Why not put in something like an "I agree" button for posts?

That's a staff call; the moderators can't do anything about it.

I can't remember the official reason why it hasn't happened. There was a <url=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.404530-Poll-The-Escapist-Forums-Suggestion-The-Option-to-Award-Posts>thread a couple of days back about a similar idea, though, so it's not like it is an idea that hasn't been recently seen. My guess would be that it doesn't really add anything (to the discussion), so there's not much point to it.

I suggest to you to Use the contact forum to suggest it again, though, if you feel it is something that should be added.

 

[Eleuthera]

I got three warning in rapid succession before I could even react to the first warning, it was right after the low content rule was brought in. It's not just low content posts.

The low-content rule has been in effect for at least as long as I've been here, you only predate me by 6 weeks. And the mods were a lot stricter back then, they/we have become quite a bit more lenient in recent years imo.

Some things aren't in the forum rules at all. I got one for making an it "personal"... when the person I was replying to put their entire case in personal terms. Another for being rude, not swearing at nor verbal abuse, simply referring to another user in a different thread as being "stupid". One before that for saying how disgusted I was about someone gloating about shoving an elderly woman off a bus. I kid you not. Though the sanction was reversed, the 6 month timer was still reset.

Calling someone "stupid" is very clearly an insult, that should not have to be explained. And if a sanction is reversed the 6 months revert to the last infraction as well.

I can see how the tokens system can condition people to be nice... but the 6 month lag time is too long, you forget what you were sanctioned for.

How do you forget what you were sanctioned for? You were sanctioned for low-content, you stop posting low-content. You were sanctioned for insulting someone, you stop insulting people. You don't just stop breaking the rules for a bit and then start breaking them again, and if you do you will end up being perma-banned.

 

[Naqel]

On one hand, I don't post nearly enough to get into trouble, so no personal experience here.

On the other, some of the posts I've seen people get banned for I could not see anything wrong about.

Balancing on my head though, is the fact that each post that received a warning I saw, did so for rather obvious reasons.


I don't have the co-ordination to balance any additional considerations, though all in all while I find the moderation fair, it still is a bit harsh at places.

 

[jawz13]

It is their house so we must follow their rules.
I don't really see how concepts like "fair" and "unfair" even come into play.
It is what it is.

 

[sky14kemea]

If you have 10 infractions over the years, then either you're getting them often enough that they aren't being removed, or you've not been here that long at all.

It may not improve the Escapist, but it doesn't hinder it either.

But it's not 10 infractions in a year... it can be 8 infractions over 3-4 years... an infraction about every 6 months.

"Over the years." I know it's not 10 in a year. D:

And people get rather mixed messages. Moviebob, Yahtzee and JimQuisition all take highly confrontational stances, regularly swear and belittle people. You can't be surprised if a small proportion of that is reflected in the forums. They rant and they flame and they don't warn their audience not to emulate them in the comments box advertised below.

That comes up a lot. It's a difficult question to answer without making people angrier about it. The basic jist is: Because they provide free content to the forum users, they have a bit of leeway with using overly-offensive language.

They're not attacking the forums personally, they never have as far as I know. If they go into a thread and start cussing out a specific user, they will get the same treatment as everyone else. But yes, their videos/articles are exempt.

How do you know it doesn't hinder escapist... it really depends what escapist is supposed to be and if it is as the title suggests, escapism... encountering such a pervasive docking system is disheartening. It's hanging over you always.

Simply because, I've been here almost 5 years, and the forums have stayed just about the same traffic/people wise. People come and go, the ones who can't follow the rules just go a little faster.

In fiscal terms, how many people avoid the forums entirely not wanting to get invested only to be kicked out... that's a lot of eyes not looking at banner ads. The code of conduct is not comprehensive, I constantly find myself having to PM new forum users not to say or do certain things for fear of reprimands. I've seen more than one leave for other forums with similar rules but more lenient punishment system.

Then that's their personal choice. We're not forcing you to stay and put up with our rules. There are a lot of people who don't have accounts and come to watch the videos, which accounts for the viewing of ads.

I don't think you should downplay the importance of your moderation with "It may not improve the Escapist" as you work does help, but the system, not the human moderators, limits the good you people can do. I thing WHAT you moderate for I correct, I don't think the system fits well with that though.

The system is set by the Staff, so any system complaints really should go to them. However, as a Moderator, you're free to quit if you don't agree with the system. I know the system is flawed, but it also makes my work a bit quicker, which helps me get to more problems in a day.

You know how long it takes for a shattered femur to heal?

2-3 months.

Why is it twice as long to "recover" from a low content post or being rude (like the stars of the site are) or any number of other things.

It's not recovering, for a start. Most of the infractions weren't "accidents" like breaking a bone is. Yes, 6 months can be a long time, especially to people who visit the forums everyday. But not everyone visits everyday. It's hard to balance equal treatment between the very regular people, and the semi-regular people.

Again, that's all down to the system, so for more info on that you'd need to contact the Staff, or post in the Moderation User Group.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

That time of the forum cycle again? Moderation in my opinion on this forum is fine from what seen and experienced. I've had a few warnings and 1 probation all deserved and managed not to get a single warning for over 3 years and got my health bar reset. I only had a green left anyway and I had to wait the extra year because I got a warning repealed and it counted against the health bar reset.

I got into a few forum "debates" with content providers ages ago. Over reactionary on my part with a few I might add but nothing that got warned. So yes it is possible to talk to people and argue without being banned.

I've never really talked or "discussed" anything with any of the mods on this site more or less ever. I do notice mods become less active since they've been mods which is fair enough and makes sense but I miss seeing the familiar names pop up.

Then the realisation sets in that fuck me I've been coming here for half a decade.

 

[mduncan50]

The only warning I've received in my 5+ years coming to this site was for making fun of the My Little Pony obsessions of grown men, so judging by your avatar I should think you'd be happy.

 

[DalekJaas]

I've been on the escapist for 4 years and the moderation has been terrible consistently for that entire time, its not gonna change.

 

[Grouchy Imp_v1legacy]

Given that most (if not all) of the mods are long-serving forum users themselves, I believe the moderation of the site to be more than adequate. The current mods have been there and done that, as far as being community members is concerned, and they all have a decent handle on what will fly and what won't. The root of the matter really lies with users who don't look over the forum posting guidelines and then cry 'foul' when they run up against rules that they didn't familiarise themselves with.

The only warning I've received in my 5+ years coming to this site was for making fun of the My Little Pony obsessions of grown men, so judging by your avatar I should think you'd be happy.

To be fair, there is something creepy about a bunch of guys in their mid-twenties fixating on a show aimed at seven year-old girls.

 

[dyre]

It's not that it's harsh, it's that it's very selective in terms of its justice. People get banned for things dozens of posters have gotten away with before them. Also, the 8 or however many it is strike system is nice at first, but for long-time users, it can add up, and it goes away way too slowly.

I've been on the escapist for 4 years and the moderation has been terrible consistently for that entire time, its not gonna change.

Never thought I'd see the words "escapist," "moderation," and "consistent(ly)" in the same sentence!

 

[Spud of Doom]

I can't stand to see someone get banned for a low-content post and yet it seems to happen quite frequently.

NOTE: I'm not familiar at all with "recent events" that some people in this topic seem to be referencing.

As a fellow long-time lurker, this is probably the main thing I notice. I will be reading through a thread and see *USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST*, only to find a relatively tame comment, or something that was a few words long and got slammed for being too short. It does seem to be this sort of thing causing most of the bans that I see when I visit. Based on this, I would say that, at a glance, the moderation does seem to be too harsh.

 

[karamazovnew]

I have a suggestion for you: Why not put in something like an "I agree" button for posts?

Count me in on that. A like/dislike with a list of people on mouse-over (facebook style) with a possibility to sort posts in a thread based on that would be great. It's so hard to read 20+ pages of comments so most comments just repeat each other anyway. This would also be great for lurkers.

EDIT: Actually nevermind.... in a nutshell, from another thread,

...because it's never used like that. People would be looking for the big numbers only. And only the first few posts would see the most action. And stuff beyond the first page would hardly get a looking. And humorous posts would get more praise than well thought-out posts. And yes, friends would like friends more often than not friends.

 

[madwarper]

As a fellow long-time lurker, this is probably the main thing I notice. I will be reading through a thread and see *USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST*, only to find a relatively tame comment, or something that was a few words long and got slammed for being too short. It does seem to be this sort of thing causing most of the bans that I see when I visit. Based on this, I would say that, at a glance, the moderation does seem to be too harsh.

While I agree with your observation, I will disagree with your conclusion.

When someone is banned and their banishment post remains, that likely because they had a long list of violations. This isn't baseball. You aren't allowed to keep hitting foul balls forever.

However, when someone gets banned for a more scandalous violation (such as posting nude pictures or heavy vulgarity), I'd imagine the mods would edit/delete that post and simply do a profile ban which doesn't direct to a post.

Count me in on that. A like/dislike with a list of people on mouse-over (facebook style) with a possibility to sort posts in a thread based on that would be great. It's so hard to read 20+ pages of comments so most comments just repeat each other anyway. This would also be great for lurkers.

As was said in the last thread where this was brought up, this is a bad idea.

Most likely, it'd either lead to a group circle jerking themselves with "Likes", a disgruntled poster and their alt accounts bombing the object of derision with "Dislikes", or both. As well as simply liking or disliking a post adds nothing to the conversation.

 

[karamazovnew]

snip

Yeap, I had just edited my previous post. I went through the other thread and came to the same conclusion. If i could change my mind in 5 minutes thanks to intelligent posts, that proves that the current system works.

 

[The Night Angel]

I think the mods do a great job. If people read the CoC (and followed it) then they should never have any trouble. If someone gets banned, it's their own fault. 8 warnings is plenty, in my opinion.
Note: I haven't been warned for anything yet, so maybe my opinion would be different if I had...
EDIT: Realised after posting that this post marks the exact halfway mark of my journey to the Neo badge.... appropriate

 

[Spud of Doom]

As a fellow long-time lurker, this is probably the main thing I notice. I will be reading through a thread and see *USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST*, only to find a relatively tame comment, or something that was a few words long and got slammed for being too short. It does seem to be this sort of thing causing most of the bans that I see when I visit. Based on this, I would say that, at a glance, the moderation does seem to be too harsh.

While I agree with your observation, I will disagree with your conclusion.

When someone is banned and their banishment post remains, that likely because they had a long list of violations. This isn't baseball. You aren't allowed to keep hitting foul balls forever.

However, when someone gets banned for a more scandalous violation (such as posting nude pictures or heavy vulgarity), I'd imagine the mods would edit/delete that post and simply do a profile ban which leaves doesn't direct to a post.

I have come across times where there is a blank post near the end of a banned user's lifespan. Like you say I assume those are mod edits removing something more sinister.

I think what bothers me though is that sometimes when I open those "user was suspended/warned" posts, I see things and then can't understand what justified that comment being moderated when compared to the 5 posts above and below it.

 

[Treblaine]

That comes up a lot. It's a difficult question to answer without making people angrier about it. The basic jist is: Because they provide free content to the forum users, they have a bit of leeway with using overly-offensive language.

They're not attacking the forums personally, they never have as far as I know. If they go into a thread and start cussing out a specific user, they will get the same treatment as everyone else. But yes, their videos/articles are exempt.

That could be articulated more clearly in the Code of Conduct rather than on an individual basis.

There is fixing the problem, and then there is preventing the problem.

Simply because, I've been here almost 5 years, and the forums have stayed just about the same traffic/people wise. People come and go, the ones who can't follow the rules just go a little faster.

The rules aren't all that clear. The definition of low content post is not very clear and leads to the dilemma of the more you say making it more likely you slip up. I mean things like "don't be a jerk" are not well defined and Convention Code of Conduct (PyCon being one example) have discarded their "don't be a jerk" clause as it's just not useful in either following the rules or enforcing them.

People need clear and specific boundaries set. People don't know they are being a jerk till they get a moderator warning that doesn't explain much of anything. And the rules themselves forbid even warning other people of their posts as that might be insulting, in these sense of "don't call other users trolls".

Then that's their personal choice. We're not forcing you to stay and put up with our rules. There are a lot of people who don't have accounts and come to watch the videos, which accounts for the viewing of ads.

It's a choice that would be good to care about and benefit from influencing.

How is the balance being between those who leave because of negative comments, and those who leave because of the rules system of reprimands discourages long term active uses which is really what Escapist excels at.

The system is set by the Staff, so any system complaints really should go to them. However, as a Moderator, you're free to quit if you don't agree with the system. I know the system is flawed, but it also makes my work a bit quicker, which helps me get to more problems in a day.

What I'm addressing is how individually each moderator makes justified decisions, but that the prescribed one-size-fits-all reprimand limits effectiveness.

If you - in part - make the system, and know it is flawed, could you elaborate on how it is not changed? I don't see how a longer reset period makes your work quicker, I don't see how it takes more or less time to review each flagged post and decide to warn or not.

Could you tell us on why you decided on a 6 month reset period... surely if each user is only making violating posts every 3-6 months that's not going to wreck the forums... especially considering that infractions can be so minor and are only a problem if in extreme preponderance.

It's not recovering, for a start. Most of the infractions weren't "accidents" like breaking a bone is. Yes, 6 months can be a long time, especially to people who visit the forums everyday. But not everyone visits everyday. It's hard to balance equal treatment between the very regular people, and the semi-regular people.

Again, that's all down to the system, so for more info on that you'd need to contact the Staff, or post in the Moderation User Group.

It's of course an analogy, when I say a heart is a pump I don't mean it's a metal piston.

The analogy is that the recovery time for a broken femur is considered extremely long and a very severe consequence, not the point of accident or not. And you may not see it as a recovery, but I certainly do and others do. We take moderation for what the word means: to MODERATE, that it's not just about kicking people out but getting them to play fair and exclusion only for those that everyone wants gone as they learn but wilfully disobey the rules.

And I'll dispute that most infractions aren't accidents as very few know what they are doing will get them into trouble and where they will most certainly be caught and reprimanded. The rules may seem clear to you applying them on a very frequent basis but for others they are not.

It's the regulars who post the most often who are most valuable, surely, they are the people who each bring the most in ad views. One person watching one video gets how many ads? How many for regular forum users? People engage in threads they are involved in.

 

[Treblaine]

The low-content rule has been in effect for at least as long as I've been here, you only predate me by 6 weeks. And the mods were a lot stricter back then, they/we have become quite a bit more lenient in recent years imo.

Sorry to sound ungrateful but that inconsistency can be a problem.

People aren't sure what will face moderation and what won't. I got a warning for replying with an embedded youtube video yet now I see them everywhere and I'd remember if I saw someone get a warning for such a thing now.

Calling someone "stupid" is very clearly an insult, that should not have to be explained. And if a sanction is reversed the 6 months revert to the last infraction as well.

(I may have been the intent for reversed sanctions to reverse the resetting of timer, but I haven't seen that in practice)

Well did you consider the context? I was replying to someone who said this (without any reprimand to this day):

"I would recommend you to not even bother to reason with 'NAME REDACTED'. His misogynist drivel deserves only mockery."

After 'NAME REDACTED' had said:

"Women want to be sex objects." end of paragraph.

The offending part was where I said "he stupidly assumes".

Is this a view that if freely expressed will irrecoverably damage the forums to allow it to go unpunished: saying that it's a "stupid assumption" to label women sex objects because they buy shampoo?

I did't even say "you are stupid" I said that a specific thing he did was done "stupidly".

How do you forget what you were sanctioned for? You were sanctioned for low-content, you stop posting low-content. You were sanctioned for insulting someone, you stop insulting people. You don't just stop breaking the rules for a bit and then start breaking them again, and if you do you will end up being perma-banned.

People know not to break the rules, they just don't know what they are. It's still not clear what a low content post is. You can't think people actively go out "ah, I'll deliberately make a low content post" they simply think that that is enough. They have nothing to gain from that.

The lines is the sand are not that distinct, we all know what the rules are, what we don't know is what qualifies. I honestly didn't know saying someone "stupidly assuming" was an insult. And the moderator didn't even say it was an insult, simply "being rude".

Other infractions haven't cited any rule, simply "don't make an argument personal".

It was in a reply to someone who was going on about what he didn't like about females in games, and then declared that the prejudice was with all gamers were being sexist. I stated unequivocally that was his view, not the views of all gamers. I disputed sanction with the moderator and have gotten no reply nor explanation.

I'm not saying the moderator shouldn't have come in, It's two things I want: an explanation of which part of code of conduct I broke and some leniency in the punishment.

At the moment the code of conduct is written such that it's much easier to apply than it is to actually follow.