[Discussion] Transparency

[Blake]

After the events that led to me, Smear, and Dad becoming moderators, it became clear that transparency and communication between members and staff is something that was very much wanted, as it should be. There were events in the past that, outside in, looked like shady dealings. And we still haven't done our best to keep you in the loop, as we should have, with things such as the rule on sexual content.

 

That rule is, seemingly, nearing posting again, but it needs a little bit more chipped in to it. And other rules, such as changes to Custom Cards, are also being discussed, though it would still be preferable for our members to tell us what they want from such, thread linked here, redundant as it is to link the second most recent topic.

 

But this latter one does bring up a point: The moderating team needs you, the members, to be open, if you want us to be open. To my knowledge, the team wants to put their hand forward to initiate this proverbial handshake (of which, I can at least attest to myself and Koko wanting it, not to say others don't), but it's a two-way street.

 

If you don't speak up in the given forums, how can we know what you want? You can communicate with us through Skype/Discord/PMs, but we can't guarantee the mod you speak to will always remember/share your concerns.

 

There has been a case of members only sharing non-sensitive information with a moderator, with said info never making it to the team. I'm not trying to pin blame on anyone, but this is something we really need to avoid moving forward, because it simply slows and deters progress.

 

Said members' opinions were given more weight, as well, before the information was made known to others on the team, so those who were open could have easily suffered due to this, despite asking for such.

 

There are 3 new moderators on the team, and increased communication amongst the team is helpful, which having clear public points would assist. It allows us to see what the members actively want, while giving a chance for rebuttal. Not rebuke, this is to be a place to tell us hat you want/need, but rebuttal as to why the idea/point isn't hitting the mark.

 

Transparency between the moderation team between each other and the members is a work in progress, and I don't want you giving any moderators OR members grief over the case mentioned in this thread. We are moving forward to openness and more understanding, and picking a fight over it would not help. What's done is done, it cannot be undone, so no use gnashing teeth over it.

 

So, discuss:

• How you want more transparency.
• Who should give it.
• Why you don't want to be open.
• In cases such as the CC Reform, should the team be open until finishing touches, until it dries up, etc., or what else? How much openness would you like to see, understanding that it cannot be 100%, due to some sensitive information.
• Anything in the general vicinity of the topic.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Would a registery for when users get banned be possible?

[Fusion X. Denver]

One thing I think would help is having as many mods on the same page as possible before moving through with something.

 

Like the sexual content rules being added, iirc that went through before all the mods really talked about it and the muddled reaction to some of the members' outrage didn't help mitigate the rising tensions there.

I do understand there's a good number of you and it's hard to get everyone's stance in a prompt manner, but I still think site-wide issues should be properly and thoroughly discussed first, even if it takes longer than you'd like. 

 

But on the other hand, you are mods and you were all trusted with this position. So I believe you all can act on your own discretion for issues that crop up here or there in your own sections or the status bar. That's why any rules added from this point should be very clear on expectations so there's no room for members to argue, "But Mod X didn't warn me for this ecchi gif, yet you're warning me for a tamer avi?"

[Darj]

Regarding the CC Reform, I would like to see gradual updates or reports, so to speak, on its progress and ask the members for feedback on the major decisions that are being considered, instead of simply working behind the curtains and suddenly place the reform in effect... only to potentially find out it still required some work, which could lead to a chaotic scene. The CC Reform thread kind of half does that: you did ask us for feedback and suggestions, but since then you have left us clueless on what decisions are being taken. I do understand you can't disclose 100% of your plans, but at least let us know through reports and inquiries that work is being done and that the reform plan hasn't been abandoned yet.

The same goes for any other reforms or change projects the Mod team may have or will have in the workshop.

 

Regarding the other discussion points, I agree with Fusion, and, this should be needless to say at this point but just like as you did with the CC Reform thread, I would like the Mod team to publicly approach the majority of the YCM community (through the News section or this one) and discuss about proposals of new rules or forum changes before placing them in effect.

[Blake]

Regarding the CC Reform, I would like to see gradual updates or reports, so to speak, on its progress and ask the members for feedback on the major decisions that are being considered, instead of simply working behind the curtains and suddenly place the reform in effect... only to potentially find out it still required some work, which could lead to a chaotic scene. The CC Reform thread kind of half does that: you did ask us for feedback and suggestions, but since then you have left us clueless on what decisions are being taken. I do understand you can't disclose 100% of your plans, but at least let us know through reports and inquiries that work is being done and that the reform plan hasn't been abandoned yet.

The same goes for any other reforms or change projects the Mod team may have or will have in the workshop.

 

Regarding the other discussion points, I agree with Fusion, and, this should be needless to say at this point but just like as you did with the CC Reform thread, I would like the Mod team to publicly approach the majority of the YCM community (through the News section or this one) and discuss about proposals of new rules or forum changes before placing them in effect.

Actually, the problem with the CC Reform is, largely, stagnation. There are other issues involved, but I want it to be something the members chip in with a bunch, mix that with life having been really busy lately, it's mostly just that. So I've been biding time until I get promoted to full moderator (Which I should any time, same as Dad and Smear), because then I can at least start testing ideas that have come forward, maybe look for a test group.

 

This is also why I linked to it here, so people will actually comment on it.

 

I would let you know if there was more to it, because I wanted everything but the finishing touches to be public )=

One thing I think would help is having as many mods on the same page as possible before moving through with something.

 

Like the sexual content rules being added, iirc that went through before all the mods really talked about it and the muddled reaction to some of the members' outrage didn't help mitigate the rising tensions there.

I do understand there's a good number of you and it's hard to get everyone's stance in a prompt manner, but I still think site-wide issues should be properly and thoroughly discussed first, even if it takes longer than you'd like. 

 

But on the other hand, you are mods and you were all trusted with this position. So I believe you all can act on your own discretion for issues that crop up here or there in your own sections or the status bar. That's why any rules added from this point should be very clear on expectations so there's no room for members to argue, "But Mod X didn't warn me for this ecchi gif, yet you're warning me for a tamer avi?"

In that context, multiple drafts have been proposed, but there are still moderators to chip in on the latest. And not all moderators are on board with what we have.

 

The issue we've run in to is that it's a mixture of common sense and vagueness, given the

 

Exhibit A

Exhibit B

 

These types of things are still based entirely on context/moderator discretion, due to how hard it is to narrow this wording down to what it truly needs to be. These could easily be warned by one and understood by another, as they are not explicit content, but they could be interpreted as such. The former moreso as an image/gif than video.

Would a registery for when users get banned be possible?

considering it gets talked about for all but randoms/troll alts/etc., it seems redundant. I mean, everyone knew about Thar.

 

You could still make a case for it, though.

[Smear]

Would a registery for when users get banned be possible?

Not sure if this includes temporarily banned users, but for perma-banned users, you can use the member search function and filter it to show Banned members.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Not sure if this includes temporarily banned users, but for perma-banned users, you can use the member search function and filter it to show Banned members.

I mean the mods have to give reasons

 

 

It's called oversight

[Smear]

I mean the mods have to give reasons

 

It's called oversight

Well that's fair enough. I thought you meant just a list for banned members. My mistake.

[Simping For Hina]

I want the mods to wear transparent uniforms. Is that what we're talking about? Support.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

I want the mods to wear transparent uniforms. Is that what we're talking about? Support.

@Night

[Blake]

Can we keep this serious? I don't want to have to warn people for things like this, so I'd prefer such stick to the status bar or Misc.

 

I really do want to hear people's thoughts, and I want people to know that I'm a moderator for the people, on a personal level. I want them to be able to come to me, and I want to advocate for them. Not saying others don't, by any means, but I'm someone who has been both, like Koko, and understands this side of much of the drama that has occurred.

[Aerion Brightflame]

Well when it comes to major changes to the site or sections (Such as the new rules), before they are implimented opening a discussion thread that lists:
 

The proposal in question

The problem that caused such a proposal to be considered

Other proposals that are also up for consideration

The motivation behind said proposal

 

Essentially allowing the community a level of discourse before rule changes are made, not after. The issue of transparency came up in part when the mod team kept instigating new rules and such before talking to us, sometimes about problems that members may not have noticed in the first place. And the shitstorm that worked up around it was because it seemed like the mods were instituing rules and changes without community input and without us knowing why - Take the mature content rule. It took Koko posting the reasoning hours after the change happened in order for us to get a clear reason for it. 

 

I don't really mind who opens and heads these threads so long as the person who does so gets involved in the discussion like you would, or like Koko would. Because it can't be as simple as 'Here's what we want to do, what do you want? Ok, thanks for telling us' and then going quiet. 

 

Similarly, if a known member was banned it should be possible in most cases (I think, I may be wrong) to disclose at a least a summary saying 'Who was banned, why they were banned' to prevent more status wars happening over them. I get that you can't give full disclosure, but it could be as simple as - Member X has been banned. He was banned because he continually harassed another member in spite of warnings to stop. 

 

Essentially there needs to be more due process as it were - Some situations this would be threads asking something before it happens, other times you bring it up when members start kicking off about it and you channel discussion and outrage too said threads. 

 

I would suggest choosing one or two moderators to be in charge of this (Essentially PR guys) so as you don't get people running with different messages all the time. 

[Tormented]

You guys know I was pushing for this anyway, my opinion is already known on the subject. Provide someone in house or employ a new mod to be the voice of the people. (Not in a janky kinda way)

 

Idgaf if you feel you need a "new" mod or not, you need to get someone who people can trust and whilst I agree that promoting an existing mod to this position is easy and valid I think it does defeat the point a little, let the people decide. Chose 3/4 members and leave it up to a vote, like a democracy.

[Spinny]

You guys know I was pushing for this anyway, my opinion is already known on the subject. Provide someone in house or employ a new mod to be the voice of the people. (Not in a janky kinda way)

 

Idgaf if you feel you need a "new" mod or not, you need to get someone who people can trust and whilst I agree that promoting an existing mod to this position is easy and valid I think it does defeat the point a little, let the people decide. Chose 3/4 members and leave it up to a vote, like a democracy.

What does said role entail? Like, you want someone who does status updates and news announcements/threads about what the mod forum is discussing?

[Tormented]

What does said role entail? Like, you want someone who does status updates and news announcements/threads about what the mod forum is discussing?

This as well as being a mediator of suggestions and be a neutral party on situations that require it, be the person who contacts YCMaker (lul) when required. Obviously this idea could be improved upon but just my thoughts.