Having problems registering on Coin Return? Please email support@coin-return.org, and include your PA username and PIN.
w̵h̵a̸t̷ ̶i̴s̶ ̵t̶h̴i̵s̵ ̷t̴h̷a̵t̷ ̶t̵w̵i̸t̵c̸h̴e̶s̵ ̶s̵l̵i̸t̸h̶e̵r̷s̵ ̸m̶o̵v̵e̴s̸ ̴s̸o̵ ̶f̷a̸r̴ ̴b̵e̷n̵e̴a̴t̴h̸ ̴u̴s̷ ̶w̸h̴a̴t̴ ̸i̸s̶ ̸t̸h̷i̵s̵ ̵l̷i̷g̵h̴t̷ ̸i̸n̵ ̴t̶h̶e̶ ̵v̸o̴i̵d̶
Posts
I'm also wondering whether mod actions will be announced publicly, the way bans are today.
We very specifically wanted to have the actual moderator actions separate from the rules. They’re mostly entirely covered by KD01 from the Governance stuff. Rules are the rules you’re expected to adhere to, and shouldn’t concern themselves with the punishments associated with each facet of the rules, imo. The severity of the moderator actions assigned to any particular rule transgression is largely up to the moderator taking action, and any mods they are required to confer with/get consensus from depending on the severity. This also allows the moderation staff to adjust if, for example, they find the community is unhappy because certain behaviors aren’t being discouraged with enough force, or if the opposite happens and the community feels that certain lighter rule transgressions are being punished too harshly.
Trying to build an all-encompassing recipe list of “if member does X, issue Y action” is a recipe for getting bogged down in a system with little room for nuance or flexibility, and prone to leave obvious loopholes. Some specific things will certainly be covered by moderator SOPs (things like intentionally calling another member a racial slur, or clearly threatening violence against another member, for example, would be immediately ban-worthy under basically any circumstances), but for most things there’s need for a human’s judgment to be involved.
Plus, with a direct line from the community, to the board, to the mods, we should be fostering a much better environment for handling conflict and having a moderation staff that is both well supported and well respected by the community to handle the work with less friction.
———
As for announcements, I don’t see a lot of value in a central public log of all moderator actions, especially when we should have that visible on the post that was actioned, as well as notifications sent to the members who reported a post that was actioned. For bans (both temporary and permanent), I see more value there and feel that those kinds of things should be a clear public record (both to head off rampant speculation and gossip, but also as a record to advise and protect our members in the event that someone truly heinous is given the boot from our community), and ideally that should be a more centralized thing than our current system of ban threads for each subforum.
Part of my concern here is that we don't even know what the appeal process is like, and that if multiple people in the thread disagreed with a particular decision, it might actually be in common interest to be able to state 'I'm appealing this decision, and if you also want to input into that process, then you can do so [PROCESS TBD]' in the thread where the decision occurred.
I feel like that fits in either a general administrative forum (ie not bug reports), or just the rules forum?
Given how sue happy Nintendo has become lately and how pro-corporate the US government is going to be over the next four years, it might be one of those times to err on the side of caution.
I believe the rules just state "links to piracy sites", which I feel is a pretty safe compromise?
Folks can continue to discuss roms & such, they just can't directly link or provide instructions of where to go for roms?
Remember folks: yahoo anime rules
What I meant to ask was, is there going to be an infraction point system leading to increasingly harsh penalties, like on PA? KD01 didn't spell that out either, it only briefly alludes to "minor/major penalties." I don't mean to suggest that we should have an exhaustive list of which offenses earn how many points. But it sounds like you're saying that there won't be points, and mods will decide subjectively when there have been enough offenses to warrant a ban?
I think that is a question for the governance team. If left to my hands I would soften the language (though perhaps not the execution in areas) around it. I think words like infractions, and a system built to highlight the punitive nature causes more problems than it solves. Rather I like a system that is more trying to let someone know that unless something changes the community will collectively choose to remove them for everyone's benefit. An unfortunate thing that has to happen not with glee but in order that protect others.
I dunno how others feel about it entirely, but the rules were written from that perspective. They seem to be well received so I think there is some appetite for this line of thought.
that sounds insane to me
Yeah, I’m not sure that a wall of “I disagree with this infection, and I too, am Spartacus” or what have you is going to reduce the amount of potential heat/ire in a thread.
While folks will occasionally apologize if they eat a warning or some points and recognize they were out of line (a good thing, when appropriate, imo), but I don’t see how it doesn’t risk becoming the exact sort of thread derailment or distraction that we’re trying to avoid.
If it’s going to be disputed, following the dispute resolution process makes sense. Announcing that you intend to formally submit paperwork disputing this unjust infringement etc etc doesn’t seem likely, to me, to help. Even if done genuinely, sincerely, and without snark, sarcasm, or condescension, it doesn’t actually add anything to the topic either.
Now I get the concern about bad mods, but again, shitting up threads to dispute moderation actions one doesn't agree with, is not the way to go for various reasons. Also fuck that entire practice because it needlessly adds toxicity to the community. Thus, that's the whole point behind an appeal process and the ability to have the board vote on removing a mod.
we're going to have a subforum for suggestions and petitions, that seems adequate
doing it in-thread is just rabble rousing
I agree, it shouldn't be in the thread. People are presumably in that thread to talk about the topic of that thread not your beef.
I wasn't sure people could openly make a thread in the suggestions forum about a dispute of modding. That would be good.
Sometimes a dude just needs to get to work, you know?
Legos are cool, MOCs are cool, check me out on Rebrickable!
I think it would go a long way if that process was explained a bit. Like it would be awesome if the “this post was warned/dinged” announcement came with a built in link to an appeal thread if one exists, or a note that no appeal has been filed yet should you want to make one. And I definitely hope that there is a public appeals thread even if someone wants most of their comments to be private PMs.
I mean unilateral mod stuff seems straightforward.
If it's already got mod consensus you probably do need to bring a good argument to appeal and change opinions.
Either 'no wait you missed the context' or a 'yeah but an infraction probably wasn't fair if this was the back and forth'. It seems those are good points to get something reduced or reversed.
I'd assume most appeals are going to fail just on most decisions aren't taken lightly. But having that channel to plead your case is a good thing.
I guess my thought is that rather leading to heat in the thread, it allows for the dispute to move out of the thread to the appeal process, and therefore may lead to less thread-shitting passive aggressive behaviour with no home to go to for everyone's feelings. If the dispute can be moved out of the thread, then the thread can go back on topic, with the appeal process acting as a pressure release valve. I think giving up a single post to say that decision discussion has now moved elsewhere may allow the original thread to move on and return to topic faster.
The intent is to move litigation out of the thread, not draw more to it. To me, thread shitting and concerns that this would lead to dispute litigation in-thread misses the fact that this behaviour comes from a result of not having an appropriate forum or location to litigate a decision. It shouldn't be a clarion call to debate in the thread; it should be a note that a thing is happening, it is happening elsewhere, and move on.
It also gives moderators a tool to shut that down to shuffle people off to the appropriate venue. It would also prevents a dozen potential different people PMing a mod about the same decision.
Now, maybe this can be mitigated via a technical solution; same as you can report a post, maybe those mod actions can have an appeal flag that would direct anyone who clicks it to the appropriate [Process TBC].
There will be defined avenues available for people to make complaints, and they can use those.
Legos are cool, MOCs are cool, check me out on Rebrickable!
And I would hope folks on Coin Return trust the process enough to believe that a specific place for complains would be actually viable, but I'm not too surprised when we have had a couple years of a previous admin telling folks to message them (in which they just refused to engage) and decades of another previous admin projecting that any complaints issued would be received with vindication & malice.
Hey, I get it, I literally made several threads to yell at our previous admin because there was no suitable avenue! If we didn't have an avenue for public complaints, it'd be an issue for me!!
I think you misunderstand me.
I'm fine with people having a dispute resolution thread or whatever it's called to openly dispute moderation, if they feel comfortable doing so, in a given place.
I think it's also ideal to be able to convey that conversation in private messages, should that feel like a more appropriate venue to do so.
Having people even simply note "I will be appealing this moderation" in the thread they were moderated in, which is not about Forar's drunk posting (currently) or whatever led to said infraction, is not productive. Having other people chime in regarding said moderation being even less effective at avoiding dragging the given discussion off topic.
That was what I was responding to. The idea that people (the person infracted and/or those supporting the person infracted) would take up half a page showing their support. The goal, by my reading of the various documents shared, is that ideally this stuff is handled swiftly and with care and consideration. If someone is just having a shitty day and lashes out in a way that finally garners them points, further making the thread (originally about the perfect grilled cheese sandwich or African Elections or how The Expanse deserves more books/seasons or whatever) about them instead, and taking a brief 'hey, quit it' nudge and adding a few or a lot of posts about people's thoughts and feelings on that nudge, no matter how well intentioned, is still just now making the thread about that actionable misbehaviour.
Now, nobody is perfect, nobody gets it right every time. Maybe a mod or few are having a shitty day themselves and misunderstand someone, and an infraction/moderation/whatever is handed out when it shouldn't, or is more severe that is truly warranted. I'm 100% in support of people being introspective and being able to say 'y'know what, that was a bit far, my bad' and rescinding or reducing as appropriate.
But that can be handled in a resolution subforum or private messages or whatever the correct path that the infracted party desires, as dictated by the CoRe rules/path/whatever.
That said, I'm opposed to the idea that every infraction should automatically generate a thread unto itself somewhere (above and beyond that which already happens in the mod private clubhouse). A) not all points are unwarranted, and I'm not sure I want a 2 point 'hey, knock it off' while drunk posting to now be openly shared amongst all folks who peruse it. If I want to push back, having an open venue to do so is reasonable, but if I don't want to, I don't think one should be forced upon me.
Also, where is the cutoff line? Every infraction? Every last one? I'm hoping that we're all going to be happy and content in our new home, but does every last 0 point warning (which I still hate, but it seems that battle has been lost) or 1-2 pointer need to be shared? Across *deity* only knows how many go out per week, month, year? Is a subforum filled with tens of thousands of infractions of any actual use?
Maybe I'm overestimating how many folks catch a nod or nudge per week, but I have to imagine at least a few, based on what I see per week or month, and then extrapolating across multiple large subforums filled with threads and folks I don't stumble across. I have to assume at least a few of those run afoul of our existing rules and expectations.
Perhaps that's a non-issue, or not a big enough consideration to be worth more than a casual dismissal, but I think the value of Privacy would befit the freedom for a forumer to challenge an infraction openly or privately as they see fit (again, within the rules of the forum), or also, not challenge it, if they so desire.
If 7 different people want to appeal a decision, does that start 7 different appeal processes? Or do they all get directed to a common point?
I would argue that a single decision should only have a single appeal; with all the people appealing pooled into a common case, for efficiency.
Without knowing if there's a technical solution that automates that, then the low-tech solution for that is that someone makes a post announcing the common appeal thread or whatever - and the place that makes the most sense is the place where the decision was made.
Until [PROCESS TBC] is explained, I would want to know that the rules allow for a low-tech tools-I-know-exist version of that.
personally i don't really think a big push to gain votes to overturn mod decisions is conducive to a positive community atmosphere and will just lead to vitriol and the kinds of endless relitigation of issues we're trying to get away from
Oh interesting I did not read it that way my apologies
I would say only the subject of moderation action should be able to appeal it. I can't think of a good reason why I should be appealing something done to someone else. I definitely can't think of a good reason that an action needs to be appalled multiple times.
Legos are cool, MOCs are cool, check me out on Rebrickable!
That would make it difficult to appeal a ban.
I assume there's some stated policy on the proper way to appeal a ban that takes into account that the person has been banned, yes? We're not just relying on proxy appeals, I assume.
Legos are cool, MOCs are cool, check me out on Rebrickable!
This also leads to questions like who is the 'subject' of decisions affecting an entire thread (tagging, moving, slow mode, stickying, etc.).
We could probably phrase it as "you have to be affected by a mod action to appeal it". Infractions or thread kicks can be appealed by the person. If a thread is locked, it can be appalled by anyone.
Legos are cool, MOCs are cool, check me out on Rebrickable!
If it's 24 hours, it seems like in the time frame that everything is sorted out, it's probably going to be over anyways.
At that point, I guess it'd be more about complaining about the mod that enacted the lock rather than the lock itself?
Bluntly, I'm not anticipating a swift turnaround on these complaint resolutions. If we're going to spend weeks sorting out particulars, 24 hours would be a lightspeed turnaround on, well, anything.
(For what it's worth I don't have strong thoughts on what an alt policy should be - it's possible that the other rules already cover any "bad " alt uses (sockpuppets, etc) so nothing is needed)
something like the current pabanappeals@gmail.com would make sense for bans
At one point there was some discussion that instead of a ban (permanent or temporary) disabling a member's account entirely, it would instead place them in a very limited role where they could log into CoRe but not actually see / access anything, PM anyone, etc.
Might allowing very limited access of those 'banned' roles to the appeal functions / PM an appeal mailbox (or however the appeal process works in practice) would work better than just a blanket shutting off of all login privileges at least for full members who get moderated out?
Spambots / trolls / etc who don't fall into the normal member moderation process could of course just get straight dumpstered.
Of course if that banned member gets abusive or something then they could get the full parting of ways boot but this would allow that communication channel between moderation and the banned CoRe member while still preserving the concept of a ban.