To the moderators of the Escapist:

[Sir Ollie]

Susan its probably a stupid idea but how about we have a few selected members of the forum such as Lord Krunk to act as a mediator between the mods and the users who can talk and ask why X was banned who then can contact members via PM to explain the reason. Hopefully that makes sense.

 

[Jumplion]

To everyone asking mods to put explanations in closed threads, etc. -- I definitely get where you're coming from, but here's the problem: We say "so and so was banned for reason X" and suddenly we have a whole lot of posts about how Reason X isn't good enough, and what about so and so who also did Reason X but didn't get banned, and so forth.

The last thing we need is backseat moderation and arguments over every ruling. If you can think of a way around that problem, I'd love to hear it.

To be honest, is that really any better than these types of threads that pop up every time a veteran user is banned, or even a semi-veteran is banned?

You guys always seem to push some ideas to the backseat like intergrated BB Code buttons in the text because "you can easily download that" or "it'll cause too much problems" or something. Things that could happen, but in all honesty probably won't. I mean, if you guys have trouble getting people to press the report button in reasonable enough times, surely you'd have enough free time inbetween moderation queues to put in a little message like "Don't be like this person"?

I say do a 1- or 2-week trial or something with this experiment and if the above mentioned "whole lot of posts about how Reason X isn't good enough" does happen I'll give you a stick-avatar the internet pony damnit, uh......well, I'll give you something!

 

[GoldenRaz]

To everyone asking mods to put explanations in closed threads, etc. -- I definitely get where you're coming from, but here's the problem: We say "so and so was banned for reason X" and suddenly we have a whole lot of posts about how Reason X isn't good enough, and what about so and so who also did Reason X but didn't get banned, and so forth.

The last thing we need is backseat moderation and arguments over every ruling. If you can think of a way around that problem, I'd love to hear it.

May I suggest that you don't post "Reason X" on posts who aren't obvious violations of the guidelines, and instead just write something along the lines of "due to a history with the mods"?
Nilcypher (I think) did something like that, and it has been mentioned before: he wrote something like "he had a history and this is the first post I found" when someone got banned for a post that wasn't against the guidelines.

However, I don't feel the need of you actually doing that, since I trust that you (mods and staff) have your reasons for disciplining members. And as for closing down threads, that's the same thing; I have complete confidence in that you know what you're doing.

 

[Lopunny]

Im aware that this isn't contributing much XD but i'd like to thank all the moderators here for their work, I for one prefer a forum where the moderators are very much active, it keeps me on my toes much more about what I say

Besides, you all seem like nice people too ^^

 

[Sparrow]

Not really helping, Mods.

We asked about confusion, and you've probated people who were posting about the confusion. Thus, causing confusion.

 

[mshcherbatskaya]

Not really helping, Mods.

We asked about confusion, and you've probated people who were posting about the confusion. Thus, causing confusion.

Who are you talking about? I only saw three people get disciplined on this thread, and they weren't disciplined for posting about their confusion, they were disciplined for derailing the thread or lobbing f-bombs and directly insulting the mods. In other words, they were disciplined for NOT posting about the confusion.

Several of the mods and admins have made detailed explanations of factors involved in knocking someone on the head with the banhammer.

If there are points that are still unclear to you, try asking for clarification. How can they answer questions you don't ask. Not only are snide remarks at the mods obnoxious, they are also "not really helping."

 

[keyton777]

swanson was banned? damn taht sucks i thought he was funny some times.



also, hi moderators.

i wonder if i have ever pissed one of you off yet....

 

[Lexodus]

Honestly, I was taking my cue from others who were also speaking of him as though he'd been perma-banned, but I didn't actually check his ban status. 90 days is a long time, though. I don't recall ever having seen a temp ban that long.

People who request self-bans (In a serious manner, via PM, not comments like his) often recieve the 90-day as a placeholder ban (They PM the mod again to have it lifted). Although I have never seen it given as a form of punishment before.

Why do they do that? My primitive brain hasn't yet fully understood...

 

[Resistance205]

I agree with you, to a point. In the case of Swanson for example, yes, he was a much loved member of the fourm, but after reading what all the mods have said and things, I see why they done it.

I do agree however, that as of late there have been more and more bans, and most of the bans I have seen have been of well known members. Weather this is becasue the members have changed their style and manner in a sense, or becasue the mod's got a bit to quick to ban is a matter still up for discussion I think.

 

[Ultrajoe]

People who request self-bans (In a serious manner, via PM, not comments like his) often recieve the 90-day as a placeholder ban (They PM the mod again to have it lifted). Although I have never seen it given as a form of punishment before.

Why do they do that? My primitive brain hasn't yet fully understood...

As someone who has requested such a self-ban, it's usually to either enforce some self-control or to stop people wondering where they are when they expect to be gone for a while. I was given the 90 days, and after my month of exile was over I PM'd Wilson and it was removed.

 

[mshcherbatskaya]

People who request self-bans (In a serious manner, via PM, not comments like his) often recieve the 90-day as a placeholder ban (They PM the mod again to have it lifted). Although I have never seen it given as a form of punishment before.

Why do they do that? My primitive brain hasn't yet fully understood...

As someone who has requested such a self-ban, it's usually to either enforce some self-control or to stop people wondering where they are when they expect to be gone for a while. I was given the 90 days, and after my month of exile was over I PM'd Wilson and it was removed.

I was one of those people who requested a ban. I was having a number of health issues and grounded myself from the internet until I dealt with them.

 

[CheeseSandwichCake]

Ok, nobody should be complaining about the mods here unless they're worse than the mods on Facepunch. And they definitely aren't. I've been banned from facepunch for posting spam in the spam section there.

They ban you if your email is a hotmail account "because you're a instantly a non-intelligent person if you use it". Heck, even if you post that you like another forum or that hotmail is decent even though your actual email isn't hotmail. For the things people get probations on this forum for, people get PERMABANS on Facepunch for doing.

As far as I'm concerned you guys shouldn't really be complaining about moderator actions here. They're A LOT more laid back than the Facepunch mods.

 

[Exosus]

I've remained aloof thus far since my opinions on forum moderation are both well-documented and in direct contravention of the vast majority of the forum, but I did have something to say in response to Cheese and a semi-philosophical tl;dr in general.

Firstly, @cheese, just because it can be worse doesn't make it good. By that logic we shouldn't worry about our respective countries' being taken over by a dictator because he probably isn't NEARLY as bad as Hitler was.

Secondly, it seems to me that a forum moderation team exists in a strange, symbiotic relationship with the forum it governs. If the team is too harsh for the forum, then the moderation changes or the people who find it excessive leave. If the team is too lax for the forum, more fucktards show up and those who find fucktardery offensive leave. This natural balance can be upset, but only for a time, and will eventually return to equilibrium.

While I personally find the moderation here to be unsuited to my tastes, my limited experience here seems to tell me that they are in line with their constituency, as it were. They do the best to enforce the community standards that exist within the Escapist community, standards which are tacitly set and accepted by the primary users. Obviously there are mistakes - some people get banned for things that aren't fair (ahem) and others slip through the cracks - but the keys to good forum moderation, a quiet understanding between users and moderators and a mutual sense of good will and good faith, are present.

Good on you Escapists.

 

[Alex_P]

I mean, if you guys have trouble getting people to press the report button in reasonable enough times, surely you'd have enough free time inbetween moderation queues to put in a little message like "Don't be like this person"?

Under-reporting only increases moderation workload. Because now you have to check every busy thread to make sure the thing that's "on fire" isn't a flamewar(*).

-- Alex
__________
* - In theory. In practice, I don't do this. I am far, far too lazy. I am by far the laziest of the volunteer moderators ("Red Guard").

 

[Xojins]

I don't know... Necroswanson's post doesn't really seem like it deserves a perm-ban, but at least a suspension. But I can't really understand why Darth Mobius was banned. It really doesn't make sense to me.

 

[Ultrajoe]

I don't know... Necroswanson's post doesn't really seem like it deserves a perm-ban, but at least a suspension. But I can't really understand why Darth Mobius was banned. It really doesn't make sense to me.

His comments on how he believed everyone who commits suicide is a coward who deserves to die might have had an effect. That and accusing people of bestiality. I suppose insinuating we should use the word 'Christian' as an insult might have affected the decision. The attacking other people on sight, that might have been involved.

The fact that he did all this within 32 hours, and that it was far from the first time? That might have sealed it.

 

[scotth266]

I like all this support for the mods, and also how open the mods are being about this. It's much more refreshing than being patted on the head and told to stop asking questions. That's why I like the Escapist community so much.

Seconded. I'm glad that the mods were willing and open about discussing these issues with us.

To everyone asking mods to put explanations in closed threads, etc. -- I definitely get where you're coming from, but here's the problem: We say "so and so was banned for reason X" and suddenly we have a whole lot of posts about how Reason X isn't good enough, and what about so and so who also did Reason X but didn't get banned, and so forth.

The last thing we need is backseat moderation and arguments over every ruling. If you can think of a way around that problem, I'd love to hear it.

Did that happen when Richard was banned? Nil stuck a a comment saying something like "user was banned for repeated rude statements" on his ban post, and I've rarely heard people ask questions about that ban. Then take Eggo's ban (likely a repeat offenses ban), which has no explanation attached, and everyone asks questions (even to this day.)

It seems that even a short explanation helps the shock that bans cause pass, at least for the most part. Jumplion made the suggestion that you guys try this idea out for a short time, and see if you get too many questions. That would be satisfactory for me: if the system doesn't work, you can always scrap it and go back to the old one. Just a thought.

Susan its probably a stupid idea but how about we have a few selected members of the forum such as Lord Krunk to act as a mediator between the mods and the users who can talk and ask why X was banned who then can contact members via PM to explain the reason. Hopefully that makes sense.

Hmmm. That's an interesting idea... but then we have the issue of the user being swamped with PM's regarding various bans. It would be too much to ask of a particular user to do something like that. I do like the idea of a mod-community relations user being appointed, it's just that it probably isn't really necessary given that the mods are willing to pop into threads like this to discuss matters.

Not really helping, Mods.

We asked about confusion, and you've probated people who were posting about the confusion. Thus, causing confusion.

Some of the users were probationed for thread derailment. Considering how serious this topic is, and that it involves mod/community relations, humor must take a backseat to seriousness for the moment.

Snip.

We're not complaining. We're asking politely for a change in the ban procedures. There's a large difference.

To everyone: I'm currently in an area where the internet can get a bit sketchy. I'll try to keep up-to-date on this as long as possible, though since it's already almost 1 AM here I may drop out for several hours for sleeping.

 

[Jumplion]

I mean, if you guys have trouble getting people to press the report button in reasonable enough times, surely you'd have enough free time inbetween moderation queues to put in a little message like "Don't be like this person"?

Under-reporting only increases moderation workload. Because now you have to check every busy thread to make sure the thing that's "on fire" isn't a flamewar(*).

-- Alex
__________
* - In theory. In practice, I don't do this. I am far, far too lazy. I am by far the laziest of the volunteer moderators ("Red Guard").

Well, some bans are obvious as to why the person was spanked with the Banhammer.

So, maybe a compromise? I say leave a message to most if not all suspentions to the permaban'd. Or if that' too much, then just the permaban (except the obvious ones like the "FIRST"s. That's really the only place where people are confused and worried, too often we're left with nothing about a permaban other than to trust the moderators.

But then we get to this whole issue of which posts are worthy of editing and which opsts aren't and yaddayaddayadda, oy-vey-voy...

Either way something has to be done or it's not going to be pretty.

 

[Alex_P]

Either way something has to be done or it's not going to be pretty.

I think something is being done. Lots of threads do have notes explaining moderation.

That said, there is such a thing as too much information. Making a user's entire ban/probation history public, for example. A short-and-sweet explanation is in order, but I don't think "transparency" should mean letting everyone indulge their drama-voyeurism.

-- Alex

 

[Aedrial]

No moderation system is perfect. Luckily the Escapist, has one of the more intelligent communities on the internet. The moderators on Gamefaqs are very heavy-handed. I think ours do a great job, just occasionally we get a stupid ban or suspension, but thats life.