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 trying to picture when this would be relevant and what it would even look like.
The only non-individual mod action that has a reversal threshold is 'Sticky / Promote Thread'. I know that was a big deal in the recent past, but the circumstances that brought that about were probably pretty unique and not likely to come up again.
Or is this something like we want to have a thread to discuss if the mods decide on a 'no relitigating the 2024 election' rule but people in the politics subforum want to keep arguing over it? Wouldn't that just go through the TBD petition process?
There's been no indication that user-initiated appeals would be decided by the moderation staff, just FYI.
I personally lean towards appeals going to the Board, but I'm open to other thoughts. But in general, I'm not a fan of a group who already had to discuss an issue and come to a consensus being the ones who also determine whether an appeal has merit.
What specifically makes that condescending? The disagreement?
So this is where you could say, "I think this ban was unjust", or "the mods have been hard to get ahold of lately" but also things like "a new situation has come up that makes me think we should add this rule" or whatever. Maybe it's naïve of me, but I think a difference in framing can make a big difference, so this would not necessarily just become the Airing of Grievances and Relitigating Beefs because we are presenting it as the place you, as a member, go to give your thoughts on how the community is going. Obviously people can say positive things here too, but obviously it will mostly become comments about things that people want to see changed. But even that does not have to be seen as a negative thing.
This is not a formal appeal system, but if we are assuming with good faith that the mods and board want the community to succeed and be happy, we have to trust that if they see big negative feedback to an action, they will consider it and take it to heart and not just put the Town Hall on ignore.
Can you clarify what you mean by "only in specified venues"? I'm parsing that as "questioning moderator actions and making appeals should be allowed to happen in the thread," but maybe you mean something different.
Legos are cool, MOCs are cool, check me out on Rebrickable!
The insinuating that college protestors aren't good, actually.
Temporary responses that automatically apply only for a short time are in general I think a really good new tool for the mods to have. It will imo open up avenues for better enforcement of rules and not make every mod action feel so weighty.
I'm not seeing those words. In fact, I don't see any value judgement on the college protestors, just a disagreement on what Jeffe wants out of his experiences.
I was originally going to say "Free Speech Zones," but opted away from that because it seemed to inflammatory.
Basically, I don't think it's a good idea for questions about mod decisions to exist in siloed off conversations or threads. There should be room for some criticism of moderation decisions across the entire board, provided they don't derail a thread or descend into acrimony.
Both of which would.be against the spirit of the CoC and new rules anyway.
You'll note I didn't say mods were making the verdict, I said "people in the same group." The board would be included, because they ultimately approved of the mod being in that position and are involved together in admin work. Effectively they know each other and work together, while the user appealing is in all likelihood just a name to them. Why should anyone believe they'll get a fair shake out of that system when they're told up front that any public dissent will be punished?
Let's end the back and forth on this, it's not relevant to the thread.
The first sentence says people want to avoid unnecessary drama and the second sentence implies that college protests are unnecessary drama.
{Bluesky Account }{Writing and Story Blog}
That's not condescension, it's disagreement.
College protesters are fine. I don't mind protest. I don't want it to be everywhere and unavoidable.
But it sounds like we've decided that members will not be allowed to contest moderator actions within the actual threads, so the point is moot.
Legos are cool, MOCs are cool, check me out on Rebrickable!
That... wasn't decided at all? We're still talking about it?
Sorry, Gniz had suggested we drop it because nobody actually wanted that. I guess some people actually want that.
So we're back to "I don't mind protest, I just don't want it to be everywhere and unavoidable," I suppose.
Legos are cool, MOCs are cool, check me out on Rebrickable!
I think "any public dissent will be punished" is a very uncharitable framing of the concept of not discussing mod actions within an on-topic thread.
If you don't believe you (that is, the royal You of the community) can get a fair shake from the people that you elect to represent you, I'm not entirely sure how to resolve that for you. I think coming into it with an assumption of distrust and suspicion is going to be an easy way to ensure you're not happy with anything.
I kind of assume that if a moderator gives some direction to the thread, asking them in-thread to clarify (in a respectful manner) would be okay. I don't think anyone objects to that.
I think if you have a complaint about what they're saying, the first step should be to DM them to discuss it, and if you're unhappy with the resolution, to appeal (if relevant) using the designated process.
Legos are cool, MOCs are cool, check me out on Rebrickable!
If it is then I hope we can break it out from the rest of the discussion because it feels very distinct and on its own. A lot of the appeals process stuff feels rules adjacent and this is rules focused. I want to be able to respond clearly to the rules focused stuff. I have to do some phone posting from time to time so it is a bit easy for me to miss in a bigger discussion. The dyslexia of it all. I hope you understand.
I will say the problem with appealing it in thread is that every thread easily then becomes about the decision itself. Whether it was a good call or not it becomes a giant back and forth that grinds the thread to a halt. This gives a lot of power to people wanting to shit up a thread to continue doing so. Even more chat focused threads become vulnerable to it since if there is a specific area of focus it now becomes about whatever the attention seeking asshole wanted it to be.
I don't like moderation black boxes entirely, but I don't see giving a new avenue to filibuster a thread being helpful. We have problems with that now. One goal was to remove the ability for people to JAQ off and cause problems. Being able to then JAQ off about getting in trouble for JAQing off makes it an almost impossible to solve problem.
I had thought there wasn't much disagreement. Apologies for missing it.
See, now I'm really confused, RME, because earlier you agreed to a post that "No one is discussing being able to do it in thread."
Whereas, here, and in the most-recent post above this one, you're arguing that people should be able to argue about mod action in-thread.
Anyway, @Gnizmo , this is why I called that out - because there are demonstrably multiple people who think this is a good idea.
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]
A recent argument over mod actions became, at least for a couple pages, a place for people to shit talk a mod's personal life. (I understand your request to avoid bringing up past stuff, Quetzi, but this is illustrative to my point about where those discussions go when allowed, and is not something I'm clutching pearls about, so I feel like I must at least say it's something that's happened here, so it would happen again if permitted).
Ideally, only an affected user (Or users) would be able to appeal a mod decision. That appeal should involve other mods and the decision to action the appeal or not shouldn't be made by the mod in question. There should also be a system to ask for a review of a mod's status as a mod, though I'm not sure that can be any way automated without inviting abuse. But automating election of mods is also ripe for abuse, so that may have to be a manual system.
But a thread shouldn't be subject to a contingent of users desire to grind an axe against a specific mod.
Infractions for insults or other transgressions should probably be handled in private with just a simple post that maybe says I disagree and will appeal, but shouldn't become a conversation in the thread. But in the past people have gone with PMs to appeal stuff in the past and without a process in place they just got ignored so going public was the only way to make disagreements noticeable.
{Bluesky Account }{Writing and Story Blog}
Except "no one should litigate mod actions in thread" and "people should be able to express disagreement with moderation actions in the context of a discussion" aren't mutually exclusive concepts.
Which I repeatedly stated in multiple posts on this topic, when I said thread derailments should be avoided when giving people room to state disagreements.
Good job not reading any of my substantive responses on the topic and resorting to trying to "gotcha" me on the basis of an Agree on a post from further back in the conversation, I guess?
Hum. So would it be fair to say you are in alignment with Magell here where calls that are more about the context of the thread rather than about an individual post would be what you are looking to discuss?
I think it's fine that an appeal can be private (noting that I think it should be 1 appeal per decision, and where multiple people appeal, they should be put into a common case, but that's part of the appeal process KD, and can be parked for now).
However, none of that stops that people may want to discuss the nuance and rulings around a decision.
A healthy community doesn't rugsweep or silence dissent.
If this conversation can't happen in thread, isn't part of a public appeal, it needs somewhere to belong.
And if it's not occurring in the thread, then people need to be able to direct interested stakeholders to where that conversation is happening.
Perpetuating the authoritarian Orwellian model of 'mod decisions are final and no dissent will be entered into' is what got us to this point, and frankly, is the habits and behaviour of a dysfunctional relationship, not a strong community. Yes, occasionally this may cause flare ups, but if they're happening here on the boards, they're at least still subject to the CoC and moderation policys enacted here, which is better than simmering gulfs of resentment being vented and reinforced offsite.
I want mechanisims and systems that support a positive and vibrant community that is capable of self-correction and healing.
As far as that affects the rules, I'm largely fine with them as written, provided I have reassurances that the above concerns are enabled - that it isn't a blanket ban on dissent, merely re-litigation within the thread.
That's a better way of putting it, yeah.
I guess my sample situation be something along the lines of a moderation decision getting made in a thread, I get to respond with "that call sucks, I disagree with it," and leaving it at that.
Maybe there's a little more back and forth, but if the thread starts to grind to a halt debating the moderation action in question, then another mod steps in to curtail.the discussion and get things back on track. If things go to DMs or a dedicated discussion thread at that point, I wouldn't take issue with that.
Mostly, I just don't want to end up in a situation where there's a hard rule about where you can or can't disagree with moderator action, and I think it's reasonable in the context of an active discussion to make room for people to disagree with a call in that moment.
Especially since some mod actions will be flawed and merit a "that sucks" in response, but won't rise to the level of a full appeal.
I didn't say it had to be in-thread. In fact it probably shouldn't. I'm pushing back against things like this:
There is value in discussing mod actions (and inaction for that matter) in public. For one, it allows other people to make informed decisions about whether the administrative staff are actually acting in the community's best interests. A blanket rule that mod actions are not to be discussed in public informs me that the mod staff are more interested in protecting themselves and their power.
Elections aren't some panacea. The person you voted in can turn out to actually be pretty shit once they take power. Look at all the Trump voters getting upset that his admin is gutting the country (despite that being what he said he'd do), or more specifically people who voted for Fetterman experiencing remorse now that he's gone full right wing. "You elected them, therefore you should trust them" is nonsense.
I will also say the target was litigation rather than clarification. Explaining why Elon Musk is suddenly relevant to the Ukrainian war in thread can appear off topic to someone who doesn't know all the latest terrible developments with the US government. I think talking about that in thread is healthy and good personally. Basically errors in fact rather than errors in judgment.
They absolutely are the exact same thing.
I express disagreement with the mod action, then you chime in with support, then someone else mentions how it is or is not the same thing that happened when ... and why doesn't ...
We have seen this before. None of us are that naive.
It is litigating mod decisions in-thread, by whomever decides to jump in on whichever side.
It sucks. It does not lead to a good place. It does not make the forum more friendly, more welcoming, or more useable.
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]
I think that's a better argument in a situation where you're talking about an single individual elected position. And I'm not saying elected representative democracy is a perfect system by any means, but it still sounds like you're presupposing that the majority of the elected board members have a good chance of turning out to be untrustworthy shits.
Basically, for any appeal process, the appeal has to be decided by someone, and I'm not sure there's a better group more predisposed to at least strongly consider the side of the random community member than the group of people directly elected by the community. If you have an alternate proposal that you think is more equitable, I'd love to hear it, though.
The appeals process for moderator decisions is not the main subject of this thread. That process has not been developed/laid out for public consumption yet. There is no official "stance" on what the appeals process will look like, other than that it will exist in some form. All of the comments thus far are purely speculative.
Honestly, I don't believe that's the case outside of anything but a fringe of interactions.
To be honest, if 0 point warnings are going to remain 'a thing' (I have argued against them repeatedly, and respect that I appear to have lost that battle), I don't think it's worth wasting anyone's time appealing them, so perhaps we can just gloss over those?
Which means we're talking about appealing moderation with actual consequences; points, a thread kick, a temp ban, etc.
If someone is eating points for being off topic, in my experience, it's either a flagrant abuse of mod power (in which case submitting the requisite paperwork is likely an exercise in frustration anyways), or it's simply the culmination of a repeated pattern of behaviour. And with CoRe's approach to requiring multiple mods to have input on actions with substantial punitive outcomes or repercussions, it feels even less likely to apply, unless we have a substantial number of moderators deciding they just don't care to follow the rules anymore. Hence my 'we're now at a vote of no confidence scenario' comments from earlier.
I'm hardly omniscient or aware of every point handed out to every person ever, but I have strong doubts that many (if any) folks have eaten recent points over simply 'being off topic', except in a 'this is the last straw' sense.
Sure, in the past (perhaps not as distant as is ideal, but it's been a while), you certainly could catch points for looking at the wrong mod kinda funny, and I'm well aware there's likely a few folks eager to decry some mod activities in the last few years that we're all dancing around without looking at too hard, lest the elephant in the room be noticed too directly (again), but at least in my experience, we're talking about a level of casual abuse of power that, again, if present on CoRe, means we've failed on several levels at once, and be at failure states that no level of pre-planning is going to overcome.
Like, we can provide all the rules in the world about dealing with board members and mods getting out of hand, but if 2/3 of them decide they really like being out of hand, we're not going to rules lawyer them back into better behaviour.
At some point, we have to assume that the majority of those elected into the board, and ratified as moderators, have the community's best interest at heart.
Having a contingency plan for someone going AFK for months at a time, or a hint of power getting to their head is entirely sensible, but if a majority+ of the above decide to become tyrants, we're Shit Outta Luck anyways, no matter what the values, code of conduct, or rules say.
Oh, hey, look, I already addressed this in my response to Gnizmo.
Then I should be able to respond with, "No, the call was right, you're wrong."
And 'round and 'round we go.
And then a mod will ding us for being off-topic, and MyBuddy420 should be allowed to say how that mod call was wrong ...
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]
"What happened to so and so?"
*Link to relevant mod action*
"Oh that blows goats"
Is disagreement. It is not relitigating
If you trust the mods to make decisions unchallenged, but don't trust them to get a thread back on track when it threates to derail, I really think you need to reexamine what your priorities are in terms of what mods should or shouldn't be able to do.