[VID] The Escapist forums moderation is wildly inconsistent (now with data!)

[Marter]

I'm so glad that even in 2021, when the forums are much less busy than they used to be, that these types of threads are still being made.

Thanks for never changing, Escapist forums.

 

[Topaz]

stuff like some users amassing 6 warnings and still posting while others are banned after 1 or 2 or 3

That was already answered rather succinctly back in post #4 (by Odin). In fact, the thread could've easily ended right there.

It surprises me actually, to see somebody request we strictly adhere to the strikes system, because that system was one of the biggest complaints on V1.
The flaw of that system meant that really disruptive people would often take too long to be banned (because we'd have to go through the motions of issuing a bunch of warnings first - warnings that would obviously be ignored), and it also meant that long-term members would sometimes get banned for a culmination of silly things like Low Content.

Here on V2, we've been more flexible and fluid with the infractions we've handed out. I'm only one mod, and I obviously haven't been involved with all of them, but I'd like to think we're taking the approach of 'the punishment fitting the crime', rather than just ratcheting up the punishments simply because that's what the rulebook says to do.

If nothing else, the fact that Houseman was only able to find 4 banned users (excluding spambots), and one of those isn't even banned anymore, really speaks to the leniency of the moderation here on V2.

 

[fOx]

Look, I don't condone dogpiling...but it's kinda hard to not mock someone that made a 30 MINUTE video on being banned from an online forum...not to mention someone like Houseman who constantly skirted the lines of the rules and did very specific things that he knew wouldn't sit well with the moderators via something like the avatar incident that was basically provoking the mod team to act and he knew it. So sorry, but he's far from objective in his video and portraying himself as a victim of an unjust ban.

Second off, you created a brand new account JUST to post that video and get reactions to it which I can bet you're taking right back to Houseman to fill him in on what's being talked about here. If you didn't think people were going to raise questions about that, that's your fault lol. You brought the video in, you created the account and made that your first post, I'm not sure what you were expecting to happen there.

Lastly, you're pointing out to lackluster moderation...but the only people that seem to have much of an issue with moderation is the people that are banned, and if we're giving out SIX warnings to people and still letting them stay, that to me says we're pretty forgiving with folk and are MORE than fair with how we ban people.

There's a bunch of people here that fundamentally disagree with one another, get in arguments all the time, and still remain respectful and engage in good faith that haven't been banned. So again, maybe it's on those people that have been banned to maybe figure it out that THEY were the problem, not the community and not the mods.

The forum doesn't need to grow to astronomical numbers. Numbers don't matter, people do and I'd rather have a smaller, friendlier community than deal with constant toxicity all the time.

I have to say, nick, you are playing fast and loose with the rules, but this is probably the healthiest the forums have been... ever. I get that a lot of people want extreme, legalistic clarity when it comes to the rules, but that was always this places problem. People learned how to find loop holes, and skirt the rules while still being bad faith actors. Ironically, the stringent rules made behavior WORSE. By comparison, the more lenient system we have now gets rid of bad faith actors fast, while fostering a better community. It feels more like a chat room or discord server filled with people that generally get along well.

It's a very salt of the earth, common sense approach to community management, and I approve. It's a system that only works if the people in charge are decent, normal human beings, so I don't know if it will work forever. But right now the people in charge are decent and normal, and it does work. My only criticism is that I wish warning were a little more transparent, and easy to keep track of. Otherwise, I think this is perfect as is.

 

[fOx]

Tempting, but it's a turn of a phrase that you're giving a little more focus than deserved.

If I meant fight like that, I wouldn't have blocked Iron, Houseman, and others. Because fighting need two parties.

If you ever saw me post in a 'fighting' way, I'd be interested in seeing it. Because an actual fight to me is someone who hurls insults, tries to denigrate someone else, and is attempting to damage the other side.

If the phrase "stood with on similar issues" are more palpable to you, feel free to substitute it. It is the same intention of what I meant.

Also, feel free to continue to think that I have an attitude that runs contrary to what you think is warranted or acceptable. I'm fine with either, actually.

I mean, I gotta be frank, whether you want to use the term fought, stood with, represented, or whatever else, saelune didn't do anything. She was rude to people online for no reason, even if they mostly agreed with her. There's a reason you're here, and she's not, despite having similar beliefs. There are people actually fighting for change in the world. She is not one of them.

We need to stop promoting toxicity and abusive conduct as paragons of moral virtue. People like that have no place of any kind in the progressive movement.

 

[BrawlMan]

She was rude to people online for no reason, even if they mostly agreed with her. There's a reason you're here, and she's not, despite having similar beliefs. There are people actually fighting for change in the world. She is not one of them.

I remember she threw a fit at me for having a different opinion on a movie and insulted me for no reason. I did not say anything negative to her before that point, and Saulene started throwing accusations saying "I am not on her side". Whatever the fuck that meant back on the V1 forums. It's why rarely ever chatted with her.

 

[RiseofDaWolfie]

That was already answered rather succinctly back in post #4 (by Odin). In fact, the thread could've easily ended right there.

It surprises me actually, to see somebody request we strictly adhere to the strikes system, because that system was one of the biggest complaints on V1.
The flaw of that system meant that really disruptive people would often take too long to be banned (because we'd have to go through the motions of issuing a bunch of warnings first - warnings that would obviously be ignored), and it also meant that long-term members would sometimes get banned for a culmination of silly things like Low Content.

Here on V2, we've been more flexible and fluid with the infractions we've handed out. I'm only one mod, and I obviously haven't been involved with all of them, but I'd like to think we're taking the approach of 'the punishment fitting the crime', rather than just ratcheting up the punishments simply because that's what the rulebook says to do.

If nothing else, the fact that Houseman was only able to find 4 banned users (excluding spambots), and one of those isn't even banned anymore, really speaks to the leniency of the moderation here on V2.

Theres one major complaint to be made about this, that being that the 3 strikes things is still in the CoC. Why give Houseman - or any other user - a black on white opportunity to cry "unfair", not to mention they may even be justified in doing so assuming they didn't catch the memo about the change in some mod comment somewhere? I have no idea if this change was clearly communicated some place more prominent but surely the CoC would be the first place you'd look to update...

The rest is just a question of how the owner/mods want to run the forum, etc etc, which I can't and won't criticize, thats ultimately just up to you guys and beyond my judgement.

 

[Agema]

Theres one major complaint to be made about this, that being that the 3 strikes things is still in the CoC. Why give Houseman - or any other user - a black on white opportunity to cry "unfair"

Does it really matter?

Moderation always involves problems and is (by those on the receiving end) normally viewed as unfair, for instance Topaz's comment #62. The more important element is the end result that people using the board in good faith feel happy there.

By and large, people should know when they're causing a mess, and if they reflect on their posts they can improve. Bans are really for people who can't or won't think a little more carefully about their conduct. Houseman can hardly have been unaware that the mods were not happy with him, and the apparent changes to his behaviour on the forum were low to nil.

 

[RiseofDaWolfie]

Does it really matter?

Moderation always involves problems and is (by those on the receiving end) normally viewed as unfair, for instance Topaz's comment #62. The more important element is the end result that people using the board in good faith feel happy there.

By and large, people should know when they're causing a mess, and if they reflect on their posts they can improve. Bans are really for people who can't or won't think a little more carefully about their conduct. Houseman can hardly have been unaware that the mods were not happy with him, and the apparent changes to his behaviour on the forum were low to nil.

I mean, thats a rather philosophical question, but in the context of the conversation we're having it undoubtedly does. Moderation which is at odds with the rules isn't viewed as unfair, it just is unfair. If the rule set has changed I just don't see any good reason to not edit the offending part out - the decision has evidently already been made and put into practice, it takes all of 30 seconds, you can stop users from thinking they are being judged by completely outdated guidelines.

And in my opinion transparency with your user base is also a matter of respect.

Anyway, you can take that on board or not. I've said way more than I planned to now.

 

[Satinavian]

I think your discussion might have got some traction if not Housemans ban had been the initial issue. No one disagrees with this particular ban, some might have wanted it to happen even sooner and since he was banned the climate of the whole forum has significantly improved. So there is little appetite for changing anything atm.


But i hope you did not just come here for that are are instead willing to engage in not Houseman-related topics. If so then welcome back.

 

[Elvis Starburst]

3. His arguments still rely on purposely misrepresenting events to fit pre-determined notions. See the video claims that Yoshi was banned for no reason despite it being well-known and publicly acknowledged that it was Yoshi harassing Nick on Nick's personal social media page that led to it.

I noticed this myself. He used my posts front and center for a couple of his points. Some of them I thought "Yeah, that's how I felt too" but there were a couple where my posts were saying one thing, but he'd ask something else or discuss a point that didn't mesh with what I was saying, and I sat there thinking "Ehhhhh, you're missing the context here." Dude was definitely stretching his points to benefit his argument at some spots

 

[Revnak]

Hey, I made it into the vid. Rad.

Edit: Also, WhiteWolf isn’t Houseman. He’s this guy.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

I kinda want to know if I made it in, but I also really don't want to give it a view. I can imagine Houseman stroking himself to the view number on his video.

 

[Revnak]

I kinda want to know if I made it in, but I also really don't want to give it a view. I can imagine Houseman stroking himself to the view number on his video.

I think you’re on the bar graph, but he specifically called out a post of mine.

 

[bluegate]

Hey, I made it into the vid. Rad.

Edit: Also, WhiteWolf isn’t Houseman. He’s this guy.

Wait, Vendor says he's technologically progressive?

Wasn't he the user still using a CRT monitor because of some obscure perceived downside some early flat panel monitors had?

 

[Revnak]

Wait, Vendor says he's technologically progressive?

Wasn't he the user still using a CRT monitor because of some obscure perceived downside some early flat panel monitors had?

It’s probably just his way of saying he’s a fan of South African mining dynasties.

 

[Agema]

I kinda want to know if I made it in, but I also really don't want to give it a view. I can imagine Houseman stroking himself to the view number on his video.

It's one of the things that fundamentally doesn't bother me about the video: basically pretty much no-one is going to watch it, and most of them are us, as directed by the posts of these forums. It's hardly going to be the biggest YouTube hit of the year.

I'm in it: only as an example of Houseman showing some of the thread arguments, and there's a page of me and him arguing over the nature of [the Christian] God.

 

[Xprimentyl]

It boils down to this: moderation here may be absolutely flawless, previously banned users may be completely at fault, the warnings system may not be inherently broken or simply not applied practically, and the community may be lovely, but from the outside looking in it doesn't look like it. If this forum wants more users it would be good for the window view to change. If the forum doesn't want more users - again, fair enough - you're free to ignore the messenger without shooting him.

I don't know about anyone else, but "how's the moderation?" is never a question, least of all THE question, I ask when seeking to engage in an online forum. I've never even READ this forum's CoC let alone know it intimately enough that I might recognize it might have been copy/pasted from V1, so I don't think the "window view" is deterring droves of desirable participants. If someone is looking to buy the house next to mine, and they ask me "how's law enforcement around here? *wink, wink*", I'm pretty sure I don't want that person as a neighbor.

 

[RiseofDaWolfie]

Hey, I made it into the vid. Rad.

Edit: Also, WhiteWolf isn’t Houseman. He’s this guy.

Forgive me, I must be a bit harsher here - its hilarious to me that someone evidently made those screenshots over a month ago when this topic wasn't a thing, meanwhile we have people accusing Houseman of being sad, friendless and obsessed. Hmm.

 

[Revnak]

Forgive me, I must be a bit harsher here - its hilarious to me that someone evidently made those screenshots over a month ago when this topic wasn't a thing, meanwhile we have people accusing Houseman of being sad, friendless and obsessed. Hmm.

I got them from a friend recently after you, uh, went on an angry rant about me in that discord. Sorry for not giving full context.

 

[RiseofDaWolfie]

I got them from a friend recently after you, uh, went on an angry rant about me in that discord. Sorry for not giving full context.

I don't recall you or a rant but I guess thats very possible. Anyway, thats not the context I was talking about. It would also totally derail the thread so open another one or come to the discord or whatever if its something you want to keep talking about.