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
You can't make an informed vote without information.
That's where your premise falls apart. No one* is discussing not being able to challenge mod calls.
* Well, I'm not, and I don't recall anyone saying mods should never be challenged. In-thread and in direct response to mod actions is, however, not the time or place for it.
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]
There is a space between "A discussion needs to pause and wait for resolution of a contentious mod action before it can continue" and "Mod actions cannot be questioned". At most I would agree that a moderator saying something is off topic can perhaps be addressed by the OP? Maybe what is on-topic or off-topic can be in thread? But whether or not something is against the rules should absolutely not be discussed in the thread where the alleged rule breaking occurred.
Not all moderator actions lead to points. I have more than a few times seen statements from mods where people had questions about what that meant for the line. Well written clear lines about what is a problem can still leave room for reasonable misinterpretation. Moderators do not have the time to have a proper editing process reviewed by multiple people to polish a statement into that form.
In those circumstances rather than a dozen parallel conversations about what it means it is much better to have a couple of posts to clarify what was meant. It has happened a few times this year as memory serves, and we are very new in this year. Seeking clarification in thread is good, helpful, and makes it easier to have a conversation.
I will also say even if we assume the best of intentions from elected members it is a good idea to have outlets to talk about problems. Properly discussing issues is the easiest way to de-escalate a situation. It allows people to release their pent up emotions around a thing. What that would look like fully I don't know. I think that is a governance issue. I will say that denying the conversation doesn't work, and causes harm in the attempt.
I really don't understand where y'all keep running into this disconnect between "saying a mod action sucks" and "grinding a thread to a halt to relitigate whether or not a rule sucks."
This:
...is basically the extent of disagreement that I want to be allowed for within the context of a thread, maybe with some additional room for pushback.
I think it's things like the bolded bit, plus folks watching what's going on here, currently.
"This is all I want!" ... "Well, no, I want more than that actually."
'Round and 'round we go.
See, here's the problem.
You say "This decision sucks" and then you argue with the mod for a few posts.
And also half a dozen other people also say "yeah, this is bullshit" and they also get to argue for a few posts.
And now half a page is devoted to a moderator saying "hey, please don't do that thing" and the resultant fallout.
This is something that will absolutely happen if someone gets grumpy that one of their friends got a talking-to.
I don't know if you disagree this will happen, or if you think a half page of arguing about a moderator action sounds perfectly fine, but either way I strongly disagree that it's a good way to run a forum.
Legos are cool, MOCs are cool, check me out on Rebrickable!
This doesn't make any sense to me, because if it's contentious then that means it's controversial, which means some people will support the action, and some will be against it, and so in response to your post saying the decision sucks, someone says the decision is good, and then the thread becomes about the mod action. Under your system, at some point moderators will have to end the discussion, yeah? So who gets to eat the infraction? And why wouldn't they think that was unfair since they weren't the only ones derailing the thread? And why wouldn't that ALSO be under discussion in the thread?
EDIT: Or the thread just gets locked and the OP, or whoever just wanted to talk about what the thread was about get screwed out of their place on the forum.
Just so we're clear, y'all understand how the logic of giving someone unchallenged disciplinary powers because they can't be trusted to fulfill a basic moderation function is flawed, right?
Agreed. The best group to make the verdict is the group the people elected. But they will make bad decisions on occasion, be it deliberately or due to a lack of information. And so people need to be able to call them on that somewhere publicly. That's all I've been saying the whole time. Forbidding public discussion of mod decisions is a huge barrier to trust, and will lead right back to the D&D\SE++ schism of today. Those discussions won't always go smoothly (probably never in fact), but will reveal issues the community need to address. Which may be bad actors within the user base, or bad actors within the admin team.
All of this discussion will also basically just be like clicking reactions on mod posts too. Which last I remember was something that wasn't supposed to be allowed going forward? Or was at least under consideration for that? But regardless of whether that lands, it's the same kind of thing. Mod drops a punishment on someone and a bunch of people react with "awesome" or "not awesome".
It's not flawed, it's based on literal actual experience with how this goes on this existing forum and has for years.
We know what this shit looks like. We've all seen it.
Plus, these things always creep as time goes on. At first someone may just respond once that they feel an action is unfair, and in a few months they aren’t content with that anymore and feel that they are justified in reiterating their disagreement several times.
I don't know where that's come from. Have many people been entirely against a way to challenge a mod-decision, or have they been against allowing it in the thread where the mod-action happened?
Personally, from my read, I'm seeing a preference for the latter and not a whole lot of the former. I certainly don't recall having said as much, and your "round and round" quote makes me think you're responding to my post, so...?
[ed] I also don't super-appreciate the condescension in "Just so we're clear, y'all understand [...], right?" I understand there may be a disagreement here, but to imply that people disagreeing with you just don't understand because they're too stupid is kind of a jerk-move.
I explicitly noted that actions other than those that accrue points might be worth discussion. "Which means we're talking about appealing moderation with actual consequences; points, a thread kick, a temp ban, etc."
My caveat about warnings was, as I said, to note that I was ignoring them, because "I wish to appeal my 0 point no consequence warning" seems like a giant waste of everyone's time.
I have also posted repeatedly in this very thread that people should have a route to address their concerns. I do not think 'in the thread that the moderation action took place' is a good venue for that. Whether that is done privately via PM (if the forum member so wishes), or if a subforum is created specifically to have that conversation openly (though I am skeptical of this being as fruitful and transparent as some seem inclined to claim), so be it.
Properly discussing issues only works to de-escalate if everyone handles the matter in a polite and civil manner. The fact that we're already at a point where someone has accrued a noteworthy/substantial infraction of some sort already indicates that may be in question.
But, I am not denying that the conversation should happen in an appropriate venue. Similarly, I see no reason why the moderator in question wouldn't follow the current trend of noting what was out of line and why, in the thread.
I don't think it benefits the community to have the thread, already disrupted by whatever tangent or outburst led to said moderation, now be abruptly about said moderation.
I guess the crux of the matter becomes, do Moderators, as elected by the Board and ratified by the Members, have authority or not?
If a mod or several are truly getting out of line, handing out points to Their Enemies willy-nilly, that's not a situation where a level headed discussion (in thread or otherwise) is going to help anyways.
Which means we're, from my perspective, talking more about moderation/infractions with actual consequences that are at least arguably legitimate.
And I'm fine with there being a proper process and potentially a venue to do so. I've never claimed otherwise.
Except we've had multiple threads in the transition discussion that have veered off topic and been corrected by moderation action when they got too deep into the weeds.
Maybe that's a consequence of better moderators, better rules, or both, but I'd day it proves my point that you can reasonably allow room for disagreement with mod actions in a thread without hard banning any such discussion.
Maybe if someone would actually specify where they'd like that dissent to be posted, I could actually respond to a substantive proposal, not a bunch of attempts to pick apart what was or wasn't said?
I don't know, I can't really respond to proposals that haven't been made.
Point of order, this subforum has been noted repeatedly to be held to a higher level of expectation of users and discourse, though admittedly it has been 'tap the sign''d recently.
So, of course folks have been at least striving to be on their best behaviour.
We've been explicitly told that we're expected to be, and while actually earning points in here seems infrequent (though non-zero, off the cuff), thread kicks haven't been uncommon either.
This is a space that simultaneously expects more of us, but also is noted to be offering a hair more latitude, due to the history and emotions that are present around some of the topics. And I appreciate that that's how it is.
But that doesn't mean it will necessarily align perfectly elsewhere either.
It shows that under controlled conditions, we (as a community) *can* do that.
Whether or not that holds up indefinitely in venues with much more contentious matters and ostensibly a lesser level of mod attention, however, isn't necessarily guaranteed to be the case.
You said glossed over which has a very distinctly different meaning to me than to you clearly. I am attempting to work within good faith but that requires the same. This feels to me very much a bit defensive in parts. I am not here to attack. I am trying to understand, explain, and discuss.
To that point when you say at some point we need to just trust elected people then I am going to seek to discuss explicitly what that means. I am glad you posted about that before. I will never have an encyclopedic knowledge of your posts. In those cases I will seek to clarify so that I can be sure I understand.
So I ask you don't assume I am attempting to put words in your mouth, or take your point to places I have not explicitly noted. I am simply seeking clarity on what is being said so the input can be properly processed and taken in. That might, at times, seem like it is drawing things out to an overly literal degree. I am autistic. That is my world. I don't apologize for this, but I do understand where it is difficult for others to work with. I simply ask for some patience and assumption of good faith. I believe the work I have helped produce shows I am doing my best to incorporate it all.
The initial mod action was infracting someone for trying to take a thread off-topic, whether by deliberately posting off-topic stuff in an on-topic thread or by trying to make turn the chat thread into a "You suck, other poster" thread. Mod infracts them.
By your logic, we should now allow some number - we'll call it 3-10 - of people get their chance to drop a, "This mod decision sucks" post into the thread, after which the mods should take action to prevent the thread from veering too far off-topic by saying, "Hey, y'all, let's get this back on-track."
Hey, it's a mod action, so, some number - again, we'll call it 3-10 - people should now be allowed to ... reasonably challenge the mod decision to tell them to stop? And when the mod hands down points, they should be allowed to challenge that?
How does this make sense?
And why do you keep thinking that we're all about "giving someone unchallenged disciplinary powers"?
Like, you realize we're talking about mods on a forum, right, and that (as near as I can see) there's broad agreement on their being an appeals process, and that we're not, you know, talking about handing sole law enforcement power to The Mad King's Executioner?
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]
I've made a couple suggestions in that regard, as have others. There absolutely needs to be a place to discuss rules and enforcement thereof. However, this discussions have been specifically about whether or not mod actions should be discussed in the threads where they occur, since so far you've insisted that if those discussions are not to take place in the thread, then that is unjust.
this section seems to heavily imply that the only recourse you have when moderators make a call you don't like is PM the mod, and formal appeals. we don't know if the appeals will even be public. and then, after the appeal, you are told to shut up entirely. this is how it comes off to me, if the intention was to leave room for respectful disagreement with moderators, somewhere public, then it should be rewritten to make that clear.
Ideally the process for appeals would be finalized before the rules were presented, but due to the realities of all this, that just wasn't feasible. There will be an appeal process. It will aim to be as equitable and fair as possible, but appeal decisions will be final. If you still disagree with the outcome, your best available option would be to vote someone else onto the Board going forward (or run yourself) who you feel better reflects your values, because at that point your problem isn't really with any individual decision or decision maker (because it has now been reviewed and affirmed by potentially upwards of a dozen people), it's with the interpretation of our rules and code of conduct all together on a more fundamental level. Your reasons for running for a board seat or for backing someone else who is running can be expressed just fine, and that's a welcome part of any open democracy.
None of that means that there won't be some avenue to publicly lodge your dissent, whether that's part of the appeal process, or via public meetings, or a dedicated forum for bringing these issues to the board, or some other method no one's thought of yet, but the specifics and logistics of that are currently undecided.
Here's my thing. I feel like if the following is seen as silencing dissent and providing unchecked power to mods:
Then I have to think the following:
Would be seen even more as silencing dissent because the mod is stepping in after he really starts getting criticized. But it sounds like you're saying the first one is out of line and the second is something we should trust a mod to do?
Proposal: There is a subforum for appeals. When a moderator action is appealed, a thread is created there. (Maybe automatgically, maybe manually, whatever.) That is the exclusive place for discussion of that action. The thread will stay open until the folks reviewing the action (mods, board, whoever) make a final call, at which time the thread will be closed, and no further discussion of that moderator action will be allowed.
Anyone can appeal any moderator action that directly impacts them. Warnings or points against them, being kicked from a thread, etc. If a thread is locked, anyone can appeal the action. Once the appeal thread is open, the person making the appeal can present their case in there, and any back and forth with staff will be publicly visible.
This provides transparency, as these discussions will happen in public. They will not be distracting, as they will not happen in-thread and will not derail conversations. They will not potentially go on forever (because we know some people are never going to be satisfied with any action against them) because there is a defined end-date on the discussion, as decided by the appeals staff.
I'm not wild about making these conversations free-for-alls, where anybody can chime in, but I do feel that if anyone can jump into the convo and say how the moderator action was unfair, others should be able to opine on how it was justified. "This moderator screwed up" should not be the only POV allowable if we're going to involve people other than the person directly impacted by the moderator action.
Legos are cool, MOCs are cool, check me out on Rebrickable!
Like, I'm not looking forward to the first time we have an appeal for a mod action taken after someone said something in a thread that was opened to discuss the appeal for a previous mod action
I know a good 1/3 of this forum or more has kinda been hands off as far as moderation goes (not due to anything specific, just a lack of mods in general)
What do you see, as a now mod from one of the places where moderation was somewhat limited, as the middle ground to fixing things?
(this is a genuine question, I've respected what you've done as a mod since coming on board and would love to hear your insight)
With regards to anything in specific, or just generally? Or I guess, what are you defining as things that need to be fixed? I'm not saying there aren't things, I just want to make sure we're on the same starting blocks.
totally!
My personal opinion is a button to appeal, by the user infracted, a review by the mods, and that's that. That's the starting point of what I consider to be more transparency to moderation in general, and an avenue to appeal that isn't just messing up a thread.
I tend more towards wanting the board at least partially involved in an appeal, though that's an opinion that might change once we actually start moving. Part of that is that I'm generally considering an appeal to be pretty serious, and I'd broadly hope that it is considered that way by other folks as well. If we're seeing a lot of spurious appeals, or people appealing every decision just because they can, I feel like we're in a situation where we don't have good faith in one another as a community, and are instead turning this into one of the adversarial relationships that we see modeled elsewhere in life.
That said, I also lean towards having other users able to appeal mod decisions. As I've mentioned before, I think there are a few reasons that I could imagine someone not appealing a decision when others think that it is something with grounds for appeal, and while I'd like us to all treat appeals seriously, I think part of that is setting up a situation that doesn't breed resentment. One of my specific concerns is a chain of events something like this: I think there's probably a fair few other things that we can do to try to prevent that scenario, to be clear, but it feels like something that I've already seen antecedents towards in my time as mod, so I want to nip it in the bud if at all possible.
And finally, I'm kind of nervous of the idea of open threads regarding appeals, just because I think they might end up in a big argumentative back and forth rather than useful discussion. I don't have a great solution for this honestly, because I do think having some transparency as to what is being appealed and who wants it appealed and so on is very useful, but it also feels like it's just creating a subforum for people to have fights in to some degree.
I'm sold on more transparency, but I feel like in your example, as the forum exists currently, there's little chance of someone assuming another user has been told no without just asking them first, either on CR or on Discord.
I dunno that's a good example though. Thank you for answering my question!
I don't think we should be trying to avoid arguments. That just leaves people simmering and feeling like they don't have a way to express themselves. It should be somewhere other than where the moderation action happened though. That's just annoying to people who want to continue discussing the topic of the thread.
I second what was said earlier, than this doesn't need to be part of the appeals process. The discussion shouldn't be limited to reversing a mod action, but can also spur on conversations about rule changes to make the forums a better place.
I think there is an over-emphasis on people appealing and receiving moderation action that in unwarranted or undeserved, when I think in many if not most cases mod action happens fairly quietly, with the person on the receiving end accepting it in good faith they overstepped a line and appreciate moderators who are reeling things back in.
If nothing else, it gives us a metric about how much moderation is accepted as a good call from our volunteer mods, and being able to say that 'of the 58 infractions given out in the previous three months, seven were appealed, 38 were 'fair enough' by the infracted, and 13 are indeterminable' helps us quantify where people stand on moderation action.
I get what you're going for, but the discussion is generally going to be an open ended complaint session where people just litigate every mod action for five pages.
Most moderator actions are pretty cut and dried, but also a lot of those cut and dried actions are the WORST INJUSTICE IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD to the person who was action'd, and they will never stop talking about it. There needs to be a well defined end to the appeals process.
Legos are cool, MOCs are cool, check me out on Rebrickable!
When the appeal thread is created in the designated forum, it is only open to the person making the appeal, the moderator who performed the action, and a representative of the group handling the appeal (mod panel, board, whatever). The rep will be there to make sure conversation is productive and civil, they can ask questions, and whatnot. The thread will continue until the rep announces a decision has been made. The decision will be announced, and then the thread will be closed.
Legos are cool, MOCs are cool, check me out on Rebrickable!
There's been lots of talk about appealing decisions that result in penalties, but not a lot on decisions that don't.