Poll: Injustice of the Permaban

[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.

 

[Treblaine]

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.

It's still important to have an "I Agree" button even if humerus posts and those from friends would get more votes because that's how democratic expression works. The important thing is people have a way of expressing their agreement, this way without each individual having to make a non-low-content post stating their agreement. Thread quickly get derailed when they can't simply state agreement or disapproval without having to add something to the topic which dilutes their message.

People feel this need as they don't want their forums being represented by the one guy who keeps going on about women are sex-objects and they want to be used and abused. Or some other unpalatable stance.

Now in a real place, he'd get boos and it'd be clear such views are not welcome, except if it was such a place where views are welcome. As it is, his comments stand as popular as any other.

A "thumbs up/down" isn't that great semantically. I'd have a boo/cheer model, and you are limited in the number of boos/cheers you can make in a day. A non-aggregate score would work, where it doesn't show the net cheer or boo but the total cheers and boos. So it makes a distinction between a neutrally treated post with no or few responses, and a controversial one with equal cheers and boos.

Boos don't drown out their voice... it just makes clear how other people feel about their views. It's about expression, not repression.

I think the best thing that can be done is to invert the post order, so that newest comments are on the first page going down from newer to older.

 

[sky14kemea]

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".

Most people seem to think "Don't be a jerk" is specific enough. If you know right from wrong, then it should be easy enough to tell when you're being rude to someone or not.

As for warning people that their posts are insulting, you can do that just fine without calling them a troll. Just a nudge via PM saying "Hey, your post is kinda insulting, might wanna edit that fast!" would do.

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.

That's not the part of the system I was talking about. I'll be more specific. In the current system, the ban level is already set based on the users current health bar, so we don't have to decide what level of a ban to give them. This seems harsh to the users, but it cuts out favoritism, which is also complained about sometimes on the forum.

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.

I didn't decide on a 6 month reset period. Again, the Staff decide the system and we follow it. If you want to ask about the Moderation system, please PM a member of Staff. I don't have many answers for that subject.

 

[Treblaine]

Most people seem to think "Don't be a jerk" is specific enough. If you know right from wrong, then it should be easy enough to tell when you're being rude to someone or not.

As for warning people that their posts are insulting, you can do that just fine without calling them a troll. Just a nudge via PM saying "Hey, your post is kinda insulting, might wanna edit that fast!" would do.

Most people isn't all people, I'd say it's just less than a majority who don't discover what crosses the line into insulting till it's too late.

Like is it insulting to say that someone's expressed (and even evangelised) views fit the very dictionary definition of sexist and/or racist prejudice? Is it insulting to say how their actions are negative and how you disapprove of them?

I was reprimanded for telling someone how disgusted I was that they'd gloat about shoving an old lady off a bus. He was not reprimanded for such a blatantly inflammatory and offensive post.

I got 3 PMs from people (not friends, people I'd never conversed with before) saying they were amazed that I got reprimanded for that post.

There were no "fu** you" in the post, it was the "I don't want to live on this planet any more" video and putting in unequivocal terms that doing such a thing is inexcusably wrong.

Is that "being a jerk" telling someone how they were wrong to assault a defenceless person?

That's not the part of the system I was talking about. I'll be more specific. In the current system, the ban level is already set based on the users current health bar, so we don't have to decide what level of a ban to give them. This seems harsh to the users, but it cuts out favoritism, which is also complained about sometimes on the forum.

Well the maxim "justice is blind" doesn't mean blind in that sense.

This is what's known as a zero-tolerance policy, removing all discretion creates more injustices than it solves. It's like California's three felonies (no matter how minor) getting an automatic sentence of 25-to-life. And this of course doesn't eliminate favouritism as moderators still decide who gets a warning and who doesn't, but I don't think favouritism is even a problem or ever has been.

Lack of communication and explanation perhaps.

And I'm not saying get rid of the health bar system, I'm saying tweak it so it isn't so harsh on your regulars.

And If it was me... I'd have the health bar go the opposite way. You are closer to a ban as your health bar DEPLETES and then slowly refills. But that's just a design aesthetic thing: a health bar shouldn't be "better" if it is more filled.

Emulating the conditioning we see in computer games like Halo it takes a long time to START refilling, (6 months) then every subsequent month another health block recovers unless you screw up. Different screws up should have different consequences, threatening and directly swearing at another user should lose more blocks than a low content post.

I didn't decide on a 6 month reset period. Again, the Staff decide the system and we follow it. If you want to ask about the Moderation system, please PM a member of Staff. I don't have many answers for that subject.

Oh, I thought moderators were considered members of staff. I have no idea what relevant member of staff's mail is or even which one would respond.

So what's your aim as a moderator if not an employee? When you have a dilemma what is the Prime Directive? In other words what are you trying to make these forums more or less like?

I'd genuinely like to know as the rules limiting speech at the moment limit me here more than anywhere else. I can accept working within an established framework of permissible conduct (house rules) but what is it all working towards?

I mean how is it bad to merely say how another person is being bad? To avoid ever challenging what any other user says or does; that is to condone by silence. But... what's the mod's objective? Will they censor such extremely inflammatory posts like gloating about assaulting frail women? Or can people reply, saying how awful it is to do such a thing.

Because stuff like that going unchallenged and people unable to challenge it... that's not an escapist environment, that's an environment people want to escape from.

Though that may be the exception, exceptions matter.

 

[l3o2828]

I hope i get banned from this: But i don't really like the modding system here.
Nor the mods, this is why i try to NEVER post a long opinion or too short one, and whenever i am presented with an opportunity to debate or argue i just log off.
I really don't want to deal with the forums much, as my opinion of the community itself only gets worse and worse with time.

 

[Bat Vader]

I hope i get banned from this: But i don't really like the modding system here.
Nor the mods, this is why i try to NEVER post a long opinion or too short one, and whenever i am presented with an opportunity to debate or argue i just log off.
I really don't want to deal with the forums much, as my opinion of the community itself only gets worse and worse with time.

Debating is fine. It's when the people that are debating stop being civil and start insulting each other or other users in the thread is when those users start breaking the code of conduct.

 

[LetalisK]

With a couple of exceptions, I don't have a problem with the modding here. It's really too easy to avoid mod wrath on these forums and I shoot my mouth off like a little bastard regularly. We get 8+ chances and very basic rules, it still boggles me how people manage to get themselves banned. I just assume it comes down to not giving a shit.