Having problems registering on Coin Return? Please email support@coin-return.org, and include your PA username and PIN.
For those who don't know, forums.penny-arcade.com will be closing soon. However, we're doing the same kind of stuff over at coin-return.org with (almost) all the same faces! Please do feel welcome to join us.
For those who don't know, forums.penny-arcade.com will be closing soon. However, we're doing the same kind of stuff over at coin-return.org with (almost) all the same faces! Please do feel welcome to join us.
For those who don't know, forums.penny-arcade.com will be closing soon. However, we're doing the same kind of stuff over at coin-return.org with (almost) all the same faces! Please do feel welcome to join us.
For those who don't know, forums.penny-arcade.com will be closing soon. However, we're doing the same kind of stuff over at coin-return.org with (almost) all the same faces! Please do feel welcome to join us.
Posts
Is that an issue with slow mode, or an issue with bad moderation? Would it be preferable in all cases to have the thread locked instead?
I think the use case for us would be more in breaking news events or State of the Union addresses to tone down on live tweeting/reactions.
I guess I'm not sure why slow mode is worse than a lock there? It seems like a lock would completely shut down your ability to advocate while a slow mode would, in theory, stem the flood of those trying to bury or silence you while giving you more of a chance to speak. But I might be missing something.
If someone is being dogpiled, they don't need individual full posts to respond to each of those, and ideally moderation leads to a space where folks don't feel comfortable dogpiling someone for the temerity of having an opinion that causes several folks to respond to them.
Whether they have 4 posts in 10 minutes or one larger post in 10 minutes, I don't see how that's much different. Especially if a few of those responses, as is often the case, are just snappy/snippy one-liners.
And if someone is pounding out half an essay of an effortpost response, a 10 minute timer probably isn't holding them back much unless they're a professional stenographer.
I can only speak for myself in that I see Slow Mode as:
I agree with Heffling that this would be something used more in a breaking news / time critical thread that's either moving too quickly to keep up, or where things are getting heated but the topic is important enough that the thread shouldn't be outright locked as a cool-down.
It's been a while since we've really had one just blow up - even last year's debate and election threads were slow by the old standards - but I was thinking more of things like the Boston Bomber / Dorner / 2008-2016 election and debate threads where we were going through multiple hundred page threads in a day and it was impossible for anyone to keep up.
Without something like slow-mode those sorts of threads are going to move too fast for a moderator to keep up on even if people are sniping back and forth, and pretty much impossible to read because the context for any given post may be a page or two back. At the same time just locking the thread and sorting things out also isn't really an option.
I don't really expect those sorts of threads to really return, but again moderation is more than just smacking people with a stick and telling them to cut it out when they get snippy. It's moderating the conversation and keeping it on-topic and on-track, in which case I think being able to slow down a thread to a reasonable speed is a tool that moderators should have.
The everyone blowing up at each other / dogpiling situation I absolutely agree probably warrants other / better / more appropriate tools.
you guys are the worst⏎
you're totally wrong⏎
halberds and poleaxes do totally different things⏎
they should not be covered by the same skill⏎
come to my house with your poleaxe and see how you fare using my halberd⏎
But that basically never happens in a forum, so restricting each person to how often they can reply kinda does nothing unless you put it on a really long timer, which could wind up restraining their ability to defend themselves.
It might just be a solution in want of a problem in the forum format anyway.
Yes.
Let the appeals process handle "what if someone shouldn't have been dealt with?" rather than trying to pre-empt moderators making a mistake.
{Bluesky Account }{Writing and Story Blog}
I think the idea of giving out a minor infraction and then upgrading it later is a decent one, but I do think it is a bit of a shift in mindset. That's not really how things are done currently (which is fine, we can change that), and I know myself and other mods have all had moments of not wanting to do something if someone else already stepped in. It can feel a bit double jeopardy, y'know?
If there's an understanding that sometimes when a thread is boiling over, a bunch of people are going to get hit with zero pointers as a placeholder while the mods discuss things, then I think we can work with that. I'm a little bit worried it will lead to weird relitigating conversations, but that's its own issue and something that will probably happen a bit regardless.
it's not an effective tool for moderation, it's a last resort when a situation can't otherwise be handled
it's not something i think we should be using as a matter of course to control the tone/temper of a thread, because that's not what it does
Exactly how points and points thresholds accumulate is something that we are still working on and have a few proposals around. We don't want to get too into the weeds on that right now because to be honest most of that is in draft or concept of a draft stages right now and not hammered out enough to argue over.
I think when it comes to the point and point threshold KDs, having a automatic review with a higher threshold when it hits the permanent ban threshold is worth discussing. I feel like to a degree that undermines the point of points and point thresholds, making it a less automatic process.
At the same time, I can see a mod balking a bit at giving a minor / major under lower consensus standards knowing it would lead to a permanent and honestly wanting assurance a sufficient number of mods are onboard before pulling the trigger. Which is part of why we explicitly said mods are welcome to seek higher consensus, but having certain cases where it's automatic is something to add to our Governance idea 'Car Park' which I'll do once I get back to my PC.
That's (usually) broadly how things go for infractions that tip things over into tempban territory anyway. If IAmAJackass is on (tempban - 1) strikes for earning his username and Does It Again in the current system someone could just ding him once more and send him on vacation if it's something obviously actionable, but in practice that last report has some "this warrants an infraction but would also tip the ban threshold, what do you guys think" before it's applied.
Sometimes that's preemptive, with the discussion happening on strike (tempban - 1) instead of strike (tempban), and IMO that counts as reaching the consensus threshold most of the time. Unilateral points tempbans, where someone just strike-threes someone out the door, have been pretty rare for the last several months and usually involve someone who's been collecting infractions like they're Pokemon in rapid succession, or who doubles down in response to previous ones.
Are we voting on the process of making Key Decisions, or are we voting on the process of making Key Decisions and also the Option for Key Decision 1 which appears to be about moderation?
Why is a Single Transferable Vote abbreviated as SVT and not STV.
this is an assault on my brain.
still reading through the thing.
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
Well you see you transfer the vote a single place so since it's already at an edge it goes in the middle
PSN: jrrl_absent
We are providing feedback on Key Decision 01 which provides some basic foundational thresholds for moderation and community votes. The current 'voting' is more of a temperature check to get feedback on what the community wants to make revisions.
If the current vote were overwhelmingly votes that like it as is this would likely be basically the final version of KD01, but looking at the feedback received to date I would say my opinion is some revisions will be necessary before this goes up for a final vote.
I don't think that answers the question regarding the bolded.
Or at least I don't feel like it does.
Both of his questions assumed the concept of voting on key decisions itself can be voted on. You answered only about KD01.
Which sort of assumes there is nothing anyone can say or do if they don't agree with the overal idea.
Are you saying 01 is both simultaneously the first decision and also a vote for the overal idea? That's confusing, if so.
Ah my misunderstanding. Coming in after the KD proposal format / structure was already chosen and then working on this with the KD format as a given for a few months I just assumed everyone else took the KD format as a given in this process.
I don't know if the KD format for presenting and then voting on community decisions is the format I would have chosen myself if I was setting up the initial Governance Committee structure however I've come to agree that while there may be other options for presenting these sort of proposals and decisions to the community for feedback none of them really offer much of an advantage and would involve trade-offs (e.g. choice / survey fatigue elevating the fewer voices that have the energy to contribute, proposals that are even longer and more tedious to get through than these, etc).
We (on the Governance Committee) did discuss a few different ways of presenting these KDs - one was having multiple 'options' for things like the Moderation Action table that the community could pick Option 1 or Option 2 (or Option 1 is better than 2, but with these changes). In our discussions about presenting this, we decided that having the team come to a consensus and presenting that as a singular option for feedback was a better method than presenting conflicting options and having people pick.
That said, maybe the general 'Hi we're the Governance Committee' thread would be better to discuss the overall process and suggestions around improvements to avoid intermingling the 'is the KD system the right process' with 'do we like what's in KD01'? Just my thoughts on this.+
TLDR: This isn't a vote for the KD process, this is basically what Governance has decided to go with. This vote / discussion is specifically on KD01 and what it contains.
Can the former be upgraded to the latter? Thread kicks are often done with a sense of immediacy, because someone is saying shitty things that are going to immediately ignite what is possibly already a powderkeg of a thread, and getting them out of there before shit gets nasty is a high priority. I would recommend either (ideally) making the 24 hour punitive thread kick unilateral (which puts it in line with the Warning action, which I believe carries points?), or else making a the unilateral flavor upgradable to punitive upon peer review. Otherwise, it seems a mod is constrained to either letting a shitty post slide just so they can get the poster out of the thread, or else letting the thread burn while they try to find another mod who has the time to go in and review potentially pages of thread to figure out if the kick is warranted.
Moderating contentious threads requires a good deal of immediacy, and we don't want to handcuff our mods too much.
Also, how to the mod actions intersect? Say someone is at ban-1 points and does something mildly shitty. Can a moderator give them a one point warning unilaterally and have them banned, or does any moderation of this individual now effectively require a supermajority vote? Traditionally, policy has been kind of unofficially the latter for permanent bans and the former for temp bans, but it's probably a good idea to have it codified.
Legos are cool, MOCs are cool, check me out on Rebrickable!
The exact details (beyond minor / major infractions) for point issuance and thresholds and how they are linked to Moderator Actions is a topic we moved to KD07 - Accumulation of points and impacts to avoid this becoming more of a monster omni-KD than it already is.
The position I plan to advocate when we are hammering some of the additional details out is that a 24 hour non-punitive thread kick can definitely be upgraded to a longer kick or a punitive one (although to be honest upgrading the non-punitive (edit 24h) thread kick to a punitive (edit 24h) thread kick would probably be distinction without difference at that point).
Thread kicks would not necessarily accumulate points on their own, but there would be an expectation of the moderator staff who feel a thread kick is necessary that the precipitating posts that warranted a thread kick should definitely receive appropriate moderator action. I would think that if a person isn't posting something that warrants at the very least a warning if not points, it's hard to make a case for kicking them from the thread.
And if they get the non-punitive kick from the thread to cool it down, after reviewing their posts there's nothing that warrants action, that non-punitive temporary kick would expire / be lifted and they could continue, hopefully with whatever fire warranted the temporary kick and investigation put out through other moderation actions either 'chill out' stuff to the thread or infractions for other posters.
There is also talk about some sort of 'this post under further moderator review' flag for posts that appear actionable, but need / warrant discussion before final action is taken. A lot of this is more technical and process questions than governance, but since it all interrelates it's worth a mention.
Legos are cool, MOCs are cool, check me out on Rebrickable!
How does the strike system fit into the framework of KD01?
I believe the 'three strike' system was always intended as an interim system of point accumulation during the transition until the formalized CoRe moderation / infraction system was in place.
There has been no discussion of the three strike system being included in the Governance plans for the KD defined moderation systems, and I expect the final moderation processes that are in place will entirely supersede that temporary 'three strike' process.
Edit - yes, this from the Rules thread:
Thankyou that's clear now.
When it comes to moderation, this KD is basically just covering the options available to moderators and the thresholds for those actions.
The nature of bans (aside from the thresholds for immediate escalation to them) along with the accumulation of points and how they will fall off and the point thresholds for them will be covered in KD07 - Accumulation of points and impacts. Appeals for moderator actions including bans will be covered in KD03 - Dispute Resolution Process.
So that will be a discussion to have later, however I can say that in our discussions making sure there is a system in place that allows folks going through a bad point to have some grace and forgiveness and course correct. At the same time, we want a structure that addresses people who show up to stir shit but infrequently or work the system as points fall off - 'frequent flyers' so to speak.
I think it is also worth a mention that Governance itself is not going to define all the specific processes that mods are going to follow in all cases. There is a separate Rules committee, and the specific execution and use of the tools given the moderators will develop their own norms and processes in a way that shouldn't be micromanaged. Basically you can't force a healthy culture from the top down.
Creating a robust structure for moderation and community input / appeals where a healthy culture can exist is our goal, but it will ultimately be up to the community (normal posters as well as elected moderators) to want and create that healthy community.
Legos are cool, MOCs are cool, check me out on Rebrickable!
I also wouldn't object to something that allows existing moderators to veto a given board choice with a supermajority vote or something, as if your moderators are really that united against someone, it's probably not a good sign.
Legos are cool, MOCs are cool, check me out on Rebrickable!
If that sort of feedback is expected to be included in the review, it seems reasonable to codify that advisory role in the selection process. As written, it looks like it's more about just looking at their infraction history and behavior issues rather than other issues like coverage, personality, and so on. It's not about reifying the mods, it's about acknowledging their unique perspective and harnessing it in a non-binding manner. (Fair enough about the veto idea.)
If the idea is that the mods will just say all of this stuff publicly during the community discussion, I think them being human might get in the way of this. If someone is really well liked, but unsuitable for some reason, are we sure that the mods are going to engage in what might be seen as publicly shitting on the nice popular person?
Legos are cool, MOCs are cool, check me out on Rebrickable!