Poll: Injustice of the Permaban

[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.