Moderation/Rule/Site Concerns and Suggestions

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

This.

 

I suggest a rule that henceforth anyone who reports more than once in a day or thrice in a week be hit for feature abuse. The initial penalty would be 0WP (a verbal warning), increasing by 2 for each subsequent offence with a cap of 6. 

 

Disabling the feature for those abusing it would also be nice. (As would utterly annihilating the feature, tbh imo.) 

This is a terrible suggestion. I have had multiple days where there's been more than one post a day that I reported that was a legitimate report. This is extremely vague and strict.

[Phantom Roxas]

I very much agree with punishing people for report system abuse, but as CowCow has said, there are legitimate reports. While the frequency of reports is definitely obnoxious, it's secondary to the real issue, which is basically people reporting others for seemingly no reason other than "This person disagrees with me." How they use the system is the problem, not how much they use it.

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

My proposal's certainly neither vague nor strict, it's an extremely specific and lenient way to discourage an abusive and completely avoidable pattern of behaviour that causes grief for both the mod team and active memberbase alike. 

 

@Roxas: Perhaps a rule for reporting posts that have violated no rule could also be punishable for feature abuse. 

[Flash Flyer - Sakura]

We can disable reporting privileges for certain groups, but not for individual members. 

 

(In this instance, members would have to be put into the group that has report capabilities disabled, and that's only if they abuse the system for frivolous reports.)

 

===

While we encourage you all to use the report system to let us know of any rulebreaking that needs to be dealt with (as we can't see everything that goes on at once), use it for stuff that actually needs to be dealt with (i.e. spam, flame wars, explicit content, etc.); not minor disagreements that you have with other users. 

 

Granted, members do report things that they think are questionable (but are unsure under site/section rules). I don't really think penalizing them for reporting a post that is otherwise fine is a good idea; least for things that do have some gray area. For petty reporting on posts that clearly do not break any rules, then it can be looked into. 

[Phantom Roxas]

My proposal's certainly neither vague nor strict, it's an extremely specific and lenient way to discourage an abusive and completely avoidable pattern of behaviour that causes grief for both the mod team and active memberbase alike. 

 

@Roxas: Perhaps a rule for reporting posts that have violated no rule could also be punishable for feature abuse. 

 

Agreed. I feel like a punishment would be appropriate, especially since some reports seem to be more "I don't like this person, please punish them" rather than "This person actually did something wrong." If you're reporting someone just out of spite, and your report doesn't have any actual merit to it, I do believe you deserved to be warned for it. For reference, the default amount for Report System Abuse is already two warning points. I believe that's a fair amount, so the initial penalty of zero warning points followed by two for each subsequent offense is something I'm inclined to agree with.

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

Polaris's idea seems great, if instead of counting reports total it counts reports on posts that did not require moderator attention.

[Wahrheit]

If consistent "abuse" is really a problem, it's probably more productive to, I don't know, talk to that member?

 

This correlates with the problem about unclear rules/standards regarding acceptable conduct. It's fine to use a system with flexible standards, it just means there's more ex-post work on the part of the mods to clarify when someone veers close to the edge.

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

And, ultimately, what is the harm in slightly excessive reports? Assuming the moderator going over them is just (which, admittedly, is an issue its own, but one for another day) it doesn't really cause problems.

 

Unless the moderators aren't willing to spend the 5 minutes it takes to look at a post and determine whether it is in violation of the rules. And if a moderator can't do that, then maybe they aren't cut out for the job.

 

Obviously, people spamming reports on those they don't like or just using them needlessly is an issue, but invoking punishments for reporting a post that a user believes requires moderator attention is just silly. It is the manner by which members help maintain the site as a positive environment, and discouraging it will only make matters worse.

[Wahrheit]

Proposal: Rule/clause against frequent and/or repeated threads of fundamentally the same subject matter or substance (i.e. flooding).

[I Hate Snatch Steal]

Though I haven't been here in a while, I do remember the last few times I was active here I was struck in a good way by how Sakura was very committed to the CC section with various contributions such as monthly contests and other things I can't remember from back then, but I'm sure were there. I realize it would be very hard to mandate a rule about how active a mod should be in their section, but it might be a good thing to consider when choosing new mods. During whatever scandal or whatever it was that Sakura was accused of, I couldn't help but worry about losing such a committed member. Of course, my information may be out of date now, but this is my contribution to this discussion none the less.

[Flash Flyer - Sakura]

The monthly contests are still there, but because it varies based on my availability (well, based on course load and all) and other things (i.e. having to run Leaderboard Postseasons because Striker is gone), it's not always every month. Too late to run the January monthly now. 

 

(I have told Gadjiltron and Black that they're more than welcome to host them as well using whatever rubric/themes they choose [if they have time]; don't need to use my particular rubric.)

 

====

Ideally, mods should be relatively active in their section (and by extension, staff discussions), though we all have jobs (either part/full) and/or attending university/grad school, and that does get in the way of activity at times. I can't speak for Zex's situation concerning schoolwork, but yeah, he was inactive a bit and most of handling CC fell on me (and whoever else was here at the time). 

 

But just keep tabs on your section and talk in mod discussions when you have the time (even 10 minutes works, because it at shows you looked at what's been discussed).

====

 

As for the flooding thing, Dad brought it up in General [most of you have seen it by now, I assume], least with regards to that section in particular. Other sections don't necessarily have an issue with flooding (at least nowadays); there was that new member in CC a few days ago posting his retrained Cosmic Synchro/Pendulums in repeated single threads even after I told him to keep his stuff in one thread if related, but that's about it. 

[Wahrheit]

I would like to submit that it should be a punishable offense to continually provoke other users across threads in ways that may not be individually actionable but amount to a worrying body of work.

 

Other users have raised their own concerns about this with me and may share their thoughts on it here if they feel comfortable doing so. It seemed like many people felt this way but were either unwilling or unable to vocalize it, so I am solving the collective action problem.

 

This behavior has been described as "shitposting" by other users, but I feel it can be more accurately categorized as "antagonizing."

 

The crux of the issue is that the behavior is a net drain on the site as users feel discouraged from posting when they face this behavior, and this behavior has no current adequate deterrence.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

I would like to submit that it should be a punishable offense to continually provoke other users across threads in ways that may not be individually actionable but amount to a worrying body of work.

 

Other users have raised their own concerns about this with me and may share their thoughts on it here if they feel comfortable doing so. It seemed like many people felt this way but were either unwilling or unable to vocalize it, so I am solving the collective action problem.

 

This behavior has been described as "shitposting" by other users, but I feel it can be more accurately categorized as "antagonizing."

 

The crux of the issue is that the behavior is a net drain on the site as users feel discouraged from posting when they face this behavior, and this behavior has no current adequate deterrence.

Personally I've always been a fan of mods having some kind of tally of when users antagonize others to try and see if it's a habit or just a once or twice thing.

[Flash Flyer - Sakura]

Well, we do have discussion threads about certain members if their forum behavior gets to the point that we need to do something about them. There have been a few major cases concerning behavior over a wide period of time (won't name specific members), but there have been some discussions about some members shortposting or exhibiting Misc-esque behavior outside the section. 

 

====

As for the rule Wahrheit is proposing, I've brought it up with the other mods to see if we need it added in the new rulebook (or at the very least, be more definitive on what constitutes such behavior).

 

If there are any other issues that need to be addressed in the new rulebook, speak up so we can look it over and deal with them. 

[epicmemesbro]

I suppose its about time I start posting here, its been long overdue:

 

Regarding the Rules

 

Please update the "No inappropriate content" rule. I think this already has been discussed but I think the mods should not forget about this issue. It's apparently still under revision. People posting suggestive content on here can be an issue, and i'm glad that the mods addressed it although I feel like its presentation could have been done a little better.

 

I think that the mods should always propose a rule change to the members via public post so they can hear from their feedback and alter it as needed. That way rules aren't just churned out under circumstances that would result in public outcry.

 

Another issue that I have is when there are grievances between two members or parties. I think that one way to address this issue is by adding a channel on discord that is reserved for settling these types of problems. For instance if a mod sees two members not getting along, they could invite them to said channel to have them discuss what resulted in them having tension between each other, obviously this would be done with a mod present. 

Ideally they would eventually find common ground and keep any incident from occurring. The channel would only be viewed and posted on by the mods but they would temporarily invite members who have any grievances between each other.

 

Now I do have some concerns about the debates section. I have seen many instances of rule breaking behavior including but not limited to: necrobumping, one word/link posting, double posting, memes/one image responses, and minimodding. Although I'm not exactly suggesting this (more of a musing really) but perhaps an advanced clause of sorts could be used in this situation. It has been working well for the custom cards section, but I'm not sure how it would relate to debates. Maybe a word minimum like ten words could be used, although tedious, it would gradually have members avoid breaking the rules in terms of one word posts. Also the advanced clause would stop people from derailing topics. Recently several threads in General have derailed into an abortion debate, even though the topic had nothing to do with it. I've also seen in debates discussions devolving into people throwing accusations at each other without relating it to the topic at hand. Perhaps debates could have generic topics pinned to curb this type of behavior, like having a pinned "abortion thread or an "identity politics" thread. That way if anyone has a desire to talk about those open ended topics they could keep them there unless a more specific thread in debates is created regarding those generic topics.

 

When it comes to bans, I do think they should be reserved for the most extreme of situations. Obviously when it comes to people breaking the law, targeted harassment, the mods should permaban in those situations. But I do think that the mods could interfere if they notice that a situation is going to lead up to someone committing a major infraction.Perhaps they could use my suggestion regarding members who have grievances with each other. Now when it comes to alts, I don't think people should have them, especially if it is revealed that those people alting are banned. Regardless of their current demeanor I think that mods should double down on banned members using alts. If they wish to return, banned members should contact the mods first (several are available on discord) and request that they be let back. The mods couldreview the circumstances that led up to their banning and decide amongst themselves if they should be let back. Even then, I think previously banned members that have been allowed back on the site should still be subject to scrutiny, especially if they are breaking the rules habitually again. The mods who have discord should post it on the site in a place that would be noticable.

 

I might add more information on the rules later.

 

Regarding moderators

 

I think we have enough moderators as is and I do think its a good idea to let some of the inactive ones go. This site isn't as active as it used to be and even though there are a lot of sections several of them are relatively inactive. The proportion of mods to members is good as is as of now. 

Also I think moderators who have been inactive for one or two weeks without notice, especially super moderators, should be subject to demotion. Another issue that most forums have is mods who are on but are just on to get by to avoid getting banned for inactivity. In my opinion mods who don't do their tasks, like going over reports or aren't really contributing when there are opportunities for rule/site changes should also be subject to this. If mods are doing fine with one mod who's just taking up a spot, they would do fine without them. 

 

A major issue that I have is with the lack of uniformity among moderators. There have been countless instances where someone did something that one mod would consider a rule violation and where another would find that ok. I think the mods should take some time to review the rules and any scenarios, and discuss who they would act to these rule violations or instances of them. If they notice some discrepancy between how they would handle the same issue they should compromise to find a common means of how they would handle it. This should go the same way for handling warning points. All the mods should ideally give the same warning points for the same offence (after looking at the warning point thread in the questions section this does not seem to be the case).

 

Also I think the mods could have a certain level of professionalism. When they see an instance of someone committing a rule violation, they should be assertive in handling it but should be preferably done so avoiding cursing people out and making passive aggressive statements coupled with punishment threats. The mods should seek to keep their cool during these situations. Also the mods should lead by example: Avoiding some personal drama with others, engaging with regular members (PR mods would be great for this) on how they could improve the site, and so on. I also think it would be best if the mod chat on discord and skype only have mods in them to avoid any sort of incident between mods and non-mods over some personal issue. I think it's best that non mods be kicked from those chats. 

 

Mods could also be more descriptive when it comes to giving warning points. In the description section they should give some sort of context on the events that lead up to a member breaking the rules, providing links to posts or screenshots. They could also give some suggestions on how to avoid breaking the rules next time. This would be alot more useful than say, just putting "r00d" in them.

 

The PR mods should be responsible for diffusing tension between to members. Since this seems to be a common issue on this site.I think this task fits the bill for what a PR mod should do. 

 

I may add more suggestions regarding mods later on.

[Wahrheit]

Disagreement among mods is actually evidence that having more mods is a good thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet's_jury_theorem

Of course it's nice when they all agree, but there will always be issues they disagree on, and if we think that, individually, they're each at least 51% likely to get it right, the more mods who vote, the more likely the result is correct. (A 3-2 vote has a higher likelihood of reaching the right result than 2-1, and 5-4 > 3-2, etc).

 

I think it's probably bad to auto-demote, because life happens, but it's surely worth checking in.

The professionalism thing seems like a straw-man, like it's obvious that this is the case. But it probably also doesn't matter that much, really, and we're all human.

[Smear]

I've just posted this in the mod forum but just to show everyone my current status this is what's been happening with ol' Smeary.

 

---

 

I've been really inactive recently due to working. Been working overnight shift constantly so my life was just - sleep all day, work all night, rinse and repeat - however soon (being within the next 2 weeks) theýre bringing in someone else so that I only have to do overnights every second week so that I have some breathing room. I do have plenty of plans as a Mod that I haven't been able to do just yet but I'm going to get right on it once I can!

[Dad]

Mods could also be more descriptive when it comes to giving warning points. In the description section they should give some sort of context on the events that lead up to a member breaking the rules, providing links to posts or screenshots. They could also give some suggestions on how to avoid breaking the rules next time. This would be alot more useful than say, just putting "r00d" in them.

 

Regarding warnings, the system is actually still bugged.  Warnings are having to be handed out manually.  Personally, I've been sending members PMs with dates when they get warned with an attached link to the post/content I'm warning them for.  I also will notify you how long it lasts.  It's my current understanding that other mods have been doing this to.  We're working on fixing the system to get everything in order.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Regarding warnings, the system is actually still bugged.  Warnings are having to be handed out manually.  Personally, I've been sending members PMs with dates when they get warned with an attached link to the post/content I'm warning them for.  I also will notify you how long it lasts.  It's my current understanding that other mods have been doing this to.  We're working on fixing the system to get everything in order.

IK this is extra work for y'all, but it's greatly appreciated. It's also a directly line for us users to face our accuser and have the ability to contest the warning in a private setting if needed

[Dad]

IK this is extra work for y'all, but it's greatly appreciated. It's also a directly line for us users to face our accuser and have the ability to contest the warning in a private setting if needed

 

What needs to be done, needs to be done.  Can't quit the job when it starts getting hard.  This also becomes a point of "transparency" if you can see what I mean.  We have to talk to members more before/during/after warnings.  It might be a pain, but it's effectively a good thing.  I'm going to bring this up for further discussion as well.