NewClassic said:
Honestly, when I say stuff like that, it's usually my way of saying "We're aware of this problem, and discussing internally what sort of solutions are viable."
That said, it's also prudent to remember that any changes we discuss are subject not just within the moderation team, but also various elements of community management and staff. There's a lot of overlap between a lot of bodies in what happens where, and who's authorized to do what, so a lot of what we examine and work with at this level tends to be subject to plenty of regulation and scrutiny. That doesn't mean we're entirely stagnant, just that not every idea discussed is going to be implementable, nor can we promise anything we haven't already gone over exhaustively. There are a lot of wheels turning throughout, so sometimes recognizing an issue and making it right can take several iteration cycles and implementation efforts. For a personal project, that's a smaller cycle than a multi-layered business.
In short, a lot of what we're working on comes far later than the time it's actually being discussed, and often in shapes we hadn't completely planned for.
As for the CoC rewrite, that's a process that is in practice almost from the second a new CoC comes up. Threads like these can also help us get specific ideas for new regulations. Instead of the vague "rude" or "inflammatory" style language in the current iteration, can you think of anything that defines roughly the same thing in a more clear and concise way? Every bit of information that's out there when the CoC is being written is another step forward for it being the best one possible.
Surely you can understand though how it can sound like a feeble handwave and excuse when you hear the sentiment repeated often with no actual change or improvement. Similar to how people grow to interpret the "if you have a problem, go through the official channels" in much the same way when such channels result in no change either. This is especially likely in situation where discussions of rules or moderation tend to resort in being told to stop more often then solutions, as sadly seems to the Escapist forum's policy in that regard. I'd have thought there would be a better place to just let people discuss and argue the rules on the thread rather then having to bounce around a lot before just making my own thread. It seems sort of silly to not have some place that everyone in the community knows is where the rules of their community are discussed and even improved upon. Even a small village will have a townhall. I would certainly propose some sort of official thread for that as at least a first step in that direction.
As for suggestions regarding the rule, I would say that language would be better in targeting behavior that is more demonstrable rather then tone or attitude which is harder to judge through text would be a better way to go about it. If the purpose of the rule is to foster discussion and civility, and I have to imagine that is the case, then target the behaviors that affect that outright. People are always going to find ways to skirt the line, so the rules would need to instead attempt to minimize harm while still fostering the behavior desired from the community. In that I would say the current "rude" rule has been a rousing failure as rather then stop the uncivility and attitude that is seen as the negative influence on the community and discussions, it has merely allowed the rule itself to be weaponized by people who would rather use it as a tool to cause harm than to foster the civility the site seeks. People are still uncivil and have attitudes not conductive to the community the rules would have us imagine the site wants, only now there is an added danger that engaging in the community might be misinterpreted as strike worthy, without even getting to the more sinister beliefs concern motivations for intentional interpretations that some would run with.
As it is, the site can keep the rule, discard the rule, or alter the rule. I'd argue hands down discarding the rule for failing to do its purpose and causing more harm then it is worth, but I understand that it is part of the patchwork ideal of the rules to help get behavior the site wants. Then again I've argued that the site does a lot of things that seem to run contrary to what they seem to want, so make of that what you will. I've been part of communities that will argue to your face if you messed up and why they gave you strikes, and I think the communities were better for it.
As for the details of how to improve the rude rule specifically though... hard to. Flaw being cited most often as interpretation and lack of consistency, any sort of way to tackle the problem there might help. My take is that since the mod interpretation of the rule can't be trusted (being it is the most cited reason for issues), better to remove that and kill that whole problem at the source rather then excuse its existence out of laziness or tradition. But if you have to keep it, I suppose you could define some root standards with regard to what is or is not rude, give examples, explain the underlying "why" and have that be consistently demonstrated and explained to users and mods alike to help establish a baseline. Beyond that, increase transparency outright and deal with the consequences that come with that, including some degree of accountability from the community itself. Yes it could result in making situations harder for moderation, but as others have said, moderation shouldn't be easy or streamlined, it should be fair. Honestly though, if the worry is so great that such a thing would be brigading or whatever, I have to ask why that is as bad a thing as presented. I mean seriously, that is saying that the support for the current system is so low that a small group of outsiders could have such an impact, perhaps it is more a sign of general distrust and unhappiness with the system then people would like to admit to. Hell, one could add aspects of that to a seniority system to unlock if worry is so great and still retain the purpose but that is me going into a more major system overhaul. Make it like citizenship where anyone over the proper age and in good standing can do something toward that end. I don't know exactly, I just can recognize the current system is more flawed then it seems worth.
Point being, if the issue is as people seem to claim that of interpretation, and if there is no way for to address the faults of interpretation without going after the mods as a nebulous collective, then we are sort of left with a handful of options with out to address that flaw.
1. Nothing changes, the problems persist and worsen.
2. Rule removed, interpretation is no longer an issue.
3. Rule remains but transparency/accountability increases, people would perhaps be better able to understand/address the rule.
4. Some mix of the above options or some new solution I don't know yet.
All I do know is that choice 1. has been demonstrated for a while and seems to only get worse.
