It seems like, with regard to the whole kicking thing
It may have been a little better if the kicks in question had been preempted by a warning?
Something to give the people in question the opportunity to modify their behavior before being punished
And I mean I can see the argument that s person should be able to tell when they're acting out of line and shouldn't need a reminder to simmer down
But it just sorta feels very hasty and disproportionate to say, "that last post you made in this somewhat heated discussion crossed the line, you don't get to participate in this conversation anymore"
I dunno. The vast majority of thread kicks I've seen are after someone has been pretty belligerent over at least a couple pages.
I've never seen one (outside of joke threads, obv) that was completely out of the blue.
Yeah but how many of those kicks could have also been solved by a mod stepping in and saying "knock it off bozo," with the added benefit of not losing that person's contributions to a thread?
Not all of them, certainly, but more than none
Jumping immediately to a kick or infraction or w/e just sorta feels shitty. It feels like the punished party is being treated like a child, and isn't being given the benefit of the doubt that they can simply be told that they're acting poorly and modify their behavior accordingly
IMO in every instance of thread kicks I've seen, the punished party was acting like a child in the first place.
Personally I've rarely taken issue with the use of moderation tools but I am frequently uncomfortable with the tone of posts by some mods when in mod mode
if you tone police the police, who will tone police the tone police
+3
Options
Donovan PuppyfuckerA dagger in the dark isworth a thousand swords in the morningRegistered Userregular
It seems like, with regard to the whole kicking thing
It may have been a little better if the kicks in question had been preempted by a warning?
Something to give the people in question the opportunity to modify their behavior before being punished
And I mean I can see the argument that s person should be able to tell when they're acting out of line and shouldn't need a reminder to simmer down
But it just sorta feels very hasty and disproportionate to say, "that last post you made in this somewhat heated discussion crossed the line, you don't get to participate in this conversation anymore"
I dunno. The vast majority of thread kicks I've seen are after someone has been pretty belligerent over at least a couple pages.
I've never seen one (outside of joke threads, obv) that was completely out of the blue.
Yeah but how many of those kicks could have also been solved by a mod stepping in and saying "knock it off bozo," with the added benefit of not losing that person's contributions to a thread?
Not all of them, certainly, but more than none
Jumping immediately to a kick or infraction or w/e just sorta feels shitty. It feels like the punished party is being treated like a child, and isn't being given the benefit of the doubt that they can simply be told that they're acting poorly and modify their behavior accordingly
This is a 13+ forum, if usera act like children they will be treated like children. I'm.sure most of you know me and are well aware that I am an idiot who seems to have difficulty policing himself, and every single time I have ever been dealt with by the moderation and administration staff they have been forthright and helpful, even apologetic in some cases.
I have been told (I am paraphrasing here) "yes that forumer is being a fuckhead, but the edict exists for a reason and we will handle this our way, and now unfortunately you have to eat this infraction because of what you did, despite what you said being accurate" in the past.
I think the only real complaint I could make about the moderation of this place is that sometimes they are actually not strict enough.
I'm still amazed by the changes SE had gone through. When the chat thread in G&T was closed I figured I was done on the forums for good.
I hated SE back then and if it had remained that way I know I wouldn't be here right now posting.
I'm constantly thankful to the administration for making this a great place to be.
I still have high resentment from what SE used to be. But whenever I get close to posting about it, I realize what Raijin has. SE is a much better place now.
I feel that using something other than someone's forum name while on the forums, like using someone's real name, can cause a treehouse atmosphere. So I am against that.
I don't have much experience about thread banning, but I have a question about it. Sometimes I go into a thread and it feels like people were thread banned at the time of the thread's creation. This thread is saying that thread banning is more of a reactive measure as an alternative to infractions. Is thread banning at a thread's creation a common thing? Or are my perceptions skewed because I only go to the webcomics thread where crwth was occasionally banned?
It seems like, with regard to the whole kicking thing
It may have been a little better if the kicks in question had been preempted by a warning?
Something to give the people in question the opportunity to modify their behavior before being punished
And I mean I can see the argument that s person should be able to tell when they're acting out of line and shouldn't need a reminder to simmer down
But it just sorta feels very hasty and disproportionate to say, "that last post you made in this somewhat heated discussion crossed the line, you don't get to participate in this conversation anymore"
The alternative would have been a jailing in both cases. Like, Weedlord, you're a wonderful poster but that shit was completely over the line.
I understand that that's
A possible alternative
But why is just a post saying "hey you're treadin' on thin ice and had best back off" not also an alternative?
It's like, if I park my car illegally and a cop comes up to write a ticket as I'm walking away, I can generally, or should generally, be able to apologize for the mistake and move my car without getting the ticket
That's....That's not how laws work at all
Cops absolutely have the discretion to let people off with warnings and will frequently do so if the person has a clear record
expecting that they do this defeats the whole point, though
+16
Options
BeNarwhalThe Work Left UnfinishedRegistered Userregular
Also on a broader and more personal moderation note, I've never known exactly who I ought to thank for helping me in the instances where I was not exactly the one directly requesting the assistance
Personally I've rarely taken issue with the use of moderation tools but I am frequently uncomfortable with the tone of posts by some mods when in mod mode
if you tone police the police, who will tone police the tone police
It seems like, with regard to the whole kicking thing
It may have been a little better if the kicks in question had been preempted by a warning?
Something to give the people in question the opportunity to modify their behavior before being punished
And I mean I can see the argument that s person should be able to tell when they're acting out of line and shouldn't need a reminder to simmer down
But it just sorta feels very hasty and disproportionate to say, "that last post you made in this somewhat heated discussion crossed the line, you don't get to participate in this conversation anymore"
The alternative would have been a jailing in both cases. Like, Weedlord, you're a wonderful poster but that shit was completely over the line.
I understand that that's
A possible alternative
But why is just a post saying "hey you're treadin' on thin ice and had best back off" not also an alternative?
It's like, if I park my car illegally and a cop comes up to write a ticket as I'm walking away, I can generally, or should generally, be able to apologize for the mistake and move my car without getting the ticket
really? I would be surprised if apologizing spared you a ticket in that situation.
It seems like, with regard to the whole kicking thing
It may have been a little better if the kicks in question had been preempted by a warning?
Something to give the people in question the opportunity to modify their behavior before being punished
And I mean I can see the argument that s person should be able to tell when they're acting out of line and shouldn't need a reminder to simmer down
But it just sorta feels very hasty and disproportionate to say, "that last post you made in this somewhat heated discussion crossed the line, you don't get to participate in this conversation anymore"
I dunno. The vast majority of thread kicks I've seen are after someone has been pretty belligerent over at least a couple pages.
I've never seen one (outside of joke threads, obv) that was completely out of the blue.
Yeah but how many of those kicks could have also been solved by a mod stepping in and saying "knock it off bozo," with the added benefit of not losing that person's contributions to a thread?
Not all of them, certainly, but more than none
Jumping immediately to a kick or infraction or w/e just sorta feels shitty. It feels like the punished party is being treated like a child, and isn't being given the benefit of the doubt that they can simply be told that they're acting poorly and modify their behavior accordingly
This is a 13+ forum, if usera act like children they will be treated like children. I'm.sure most of you know me and are well aware that I am an idiot who seems to have difficulty policing himself, and every single time I have ever been dealt with by the moderation and administration staff they have been forthright and helpful, even apologetic in some cases.
I have been told (I am paraphrasing here) "yes that forumer is being a fuckhead, but the edict exists for a reason and we will handle this our way, and now unfortunately you have to eat this infraction because of what you did, despite what you said being accurate" in the past.
I think the only real complaint I could make about the moderation of this place is that sometimes they are actually not strict enough.
Flagrantly breaking rules is sort of a different thing than what I'm talking about
Yo I actually have a question about anime threads. I lurked here before anime threads were outright banned, but I don't really remember them. We currently have a Gunpla thread on this forum which has been allowed to exist despite people posting clips and discussing Gunpla-specific anime. Talk about anime generally runs for a few consecutive posts and then the thread returns to talk about Gunpla and everything is hunky-dory and it doesn't devolve into a shitshow. Were the anime threads of the past about specific anime series or anime in general (or both)? If I'm allowed a direct follow-up question: If series specific anime threads were less problematic back then and given that the forum has generally "matured," could series specific threads ever return?
It seems like, with regard to the whole kicking thing
It may have been a little better if the kicks in question had been preempted by a warning?
Something to give the people in question the opportunity to modify their behavior before being punished
And I mean I can see the argument that s person should be able to tell when they're acting out of line and shouldn't need a reminder to simmer down
But it just sorta feels very hasty and disproportionate to say, "that last post you made in this somewhat heated discussion crossed the line, you don't get to participate in this conversation anymore"
I dunno. The vast majority of thread kicks I've seen are after someone has been pretty belligerent over at least a couple pages.
I've never seen one (outside of joke threads, obv) that was completely out of the blue.
Yeah but how many of those kicks could have also been solved by a mod stepping in and saying "knock it off bozo," with the added benefit of not losing that person's contributions to a thread?
Not all of them, certainly, but more than none
Jumping immediately to a kick or infraction or w/e just sorta feels shitty. It feels like the punished party is being treated like a child, and isn't being given the benefit of the doubt that they can simply be told that they're acting poorly and modify their behavior accordingly
IMO in every instance of thread kicks I've seen, the punished party was acting like a child in the first place.
bleughhhh I am regretting that choice of words
The point I'm making is that there are plenty of times where simply saying "hey, cut it out" will accomplish the same thing as punitive action
this is a question for any moderator to answer since a few of them are around right now
do any forumers have mod forum nicknames
like stuff they only get called in the mod forum
if so what is one of them (you don't have to say what forumer it is, just the nickname)
I came barely remember people's handles, let alone a nickname.
I remember a dude whose name was a random string of characters who was referred to by us as "keyboard smash", but I don't know if that was our doing or someone else's.
GonmunHe keeps kickin' me inthe dickRegistered Userregular
edited June 2015
I for some reason think that it was here that I saw it but was there not a feature early on with kicking that the person kicked from a thread could have it set for a time limit and then be allowed back in once said time had expired? I almost want to say it was here but if it was somewhere else or I dreamed it I wouldn't be entirely surprised either.
It seems like, with regard to the whole kicking thing
It may have been a little better if the kicks in question had been preempted by a warning?
Something to give the people in question the opportunity to modify their behavior before being punished
And I mean I can see the argument that s person should be able to tell when they're acting out of line and shouldn't need a reminder to simmer down
But it just sorta feels very hasty and disproportionate to say, "that last post you made in this somewhat heated discussion crossed the line, you don't get to participate in this conversation anymore"
I dunno. The vast majority of thread kicks I've seen are after someone has been pretty belligerent over at least a couple pages.
I've never seen one (outside of joke threads, obv) that was completely out of the blue.
Yeah but how many of those kicks could have also been solved by a mod stepping in and saying "knock it off bozo," with the added benefit of not losing that person's contributions to a thread?
Not all of them, certainly, but more than none
Jumping immediately to a kick or infraction or w/e just sorta feels shitty. It feels like the punished party is being treated like a child, and isn't being given the benefit of the doubt that they can simply be told that they're acting poorly and modify their behavior accordingly
IMO in every instance of thread kicks I've seen, the punished party was acting like a child in the first place.
bleughhhh I am regretting that choice of words
The point I'm making is that there are plenty of times where simply saying "hey, cut it out" will accomplish the same thing as punitive action
The thing is, they do that too
But if you EXPECT that they do that, that kind of defangs the whole process
Yo I actually have a question about anime threads. I lurked here before anime threads were outright banned, but I don't really remember them. We currently have a Gunpla thread on this forum which has been allowed to exist despite people posting clips and discussing Gunpla-specific anime. Talk about anime generally runs for a few consecutive posts and then the thread returns to talk about Gunpla and everything is hunky-dory and it doesn't devolve into a shitshow. Were the anime threads of the past about specific anime series or anime in general (or both)? If I'm allowed a direct follow-up question: If series specific anime threads were less problematic back then, could series specific threads ever return?
(ignoring my opinion about it) Will this thread consist of 50%+ discussion on this under aged person's appearance?
Anime thread isn't returning, how much I try. I've seen anime specific threads appearing once in a while, and never question it and enjoy it while it lasts.
0
Options
Shortytouching the meatIntergalactic Cool CourtRegistered Userregular
Do you enjoy your time posting here or has having to do it for a job made it just a thing that's part of work
I mostly enjoy the posting, I only really post if I'm moderating or doing so for my own entertainment. If I didn't work here I would post much less, but that's more a function of spending 12 years in the same community.
Oh, sorry, I actually meant policy in general, not the name stuff. Like the Glorious Edict, was it solely because of the tone on these boards or was it also in part to get out in front of what feels like a general elevation of hostilities on the net?
The glorious edict was made on a whim based on an afternoon of me thinking about it and given a funny name so that I could take it back and say it was a joke. It was to get in front of the general elevation of hostilities on the net. In the old days, the PA forums were semi-unique in being a place where you could call everyone a shithead. When the entire internet turned into that, I wanted to be something different.
you know, occasionally I sit and think about the old days
I gotta say I don't miss them
we were practically feral
I wasn't a fan of the edict at first but I've come around
It seems like, with regard to the whole kicking thing
It may have been a little better if the kicks in question had been preempted by a warning?
Something to give the people in question the opportunity to modify their behavior before being punished
And I mean I can see the argument that s person should be able to tell when they're acting out of line and shouldn't need a reminder to simmer down
But it just sorta feels very hasty and disproportionate to say, "that last post you made in this somewhat heated discussion crossed the line, you don't get to participate in this conversation anymore"
I dunno. The vast majority of thread kicks I've seen are after someone has been pretty belligerent over at least a couple pages.
I've never seen one (outside of joke threads, obv) that was completely out of the blue.
Yeah but how many of those kicks could have also been solved by a mod stepping in and saying "knock it off bozo," with the added benefit of not losing that person's contributions to a thread?
Not all of them, certainly, but more than none
Jumping immediately to a kick or infraction or w/e just sorta feels shitty. It feels like the punished party is being treated like a child, and isn't being given the benefit of the doubt that they can simply be told that they're acting poorly and modify their behavior accordingly
IMO in every instance of thread kicks I've seen, the punished party was acting like a child in the first place.
bleughhhh I am regretting that choice of words
The point I'm making is that there are plenty of times where simply saying "hey, cut it out" will accomplish the same thing as punitive action
The thing is, they do that too
But if you EXPECT that they do that, that kind of defangs the whole process
Not really?
I don't see how it defangs anything to have a mod jump in and say "hey quit it" and only follow up with punishment if that goes unheeded
Regardless of Zay's question on thread-specific banning, I do think it would be great to have some more transparency in how and why moderation decisions are made, and potentially some sort of actual escalation path in the case of disagreements. As it is now, your choice is; speak to the mod who punished you directly and express contrition (regardless of whether the punitive action was legit or not in your mind), or GTFO. It would be good to have some sort of clarified process that allows the community to understand (and comment on) the way the community's being managed, and to resolve those differences of opinion in a way that isn't completely black box.
The "bans" thread did this to some small extent but I think a more up-front and open process would foster the perception that mods are accountable for their decisions and ultimately help diffuse the discord around those controversial disciplinary situations.
There is a procedure for escalating. It's described in the rules thread in some detail. The short version is, talk to the mod from whence the action came. If you are not satisfied with the answer given, talk to the Administrator. If you are not satisfied with the Administrator's response, too bad.
Of course, but that process is still completely obscured from the community at-large and the result is ultimately contingent on the opinion of, at most, two people. Even if it's rarely utilized I think just having a more-detailed and transparent process would help the vibe in contentious situations.
I think it's obscured to a point because we don't want this to be a forum about how the forum is run, lest the whole endeavor collapse in a puff of meta. When we have rules like "don't bitch about mod decisions in the thread", it's not because we're capricious or secretive or unaccountable. It's because a discussion of someone's behavior and subsequent mod actions would get in the way of what the thread was ostensibly designed to discuss, and that tangent would only be of interest to a tiny number of people anyway.
In addition, it's inaccurate to say that any mod decision or appeal is seen by two people at most. Every report and every infraction gets logged, and most mods browse at least some of those, so that everything any of us do gets seen by a fairly large fraction of the mod base. We also comment in the mod forum about appeals or complaints, and introspection is fairly common - mods flat-out asking "Did I make the right call here?" happens often.
If you approach us with courtesy - not necessarily contrition, but simple courtesy - you are guaranteed to receive at least a polite assessment of why we think something went wrong that required action.
Also, based on my observations, Tube isn't inclined to side with a mod just because he's a mod, or ignore complaints out of hand. Hell, I got dinged recently because I called someone an asshole and told them to get fucked. I screwed up, Tube called me on it, I ate my points, no big.
Absolutely; the place for this sort of additional transparency would definitely not be within the thread where the moderation occurred, or even (necessarily) the forum. I don't want to sacrifice the integrity and clarity of the discussion itself for the purposes of clarifying moderation.
In terms of the "formalized", public process for dealing with moderator disputes (as zerzhul paraphrased it), it is a two-stage system. I tend to assume there's more discussion going on behind the scenes, but none of that being exposed, I could absolutely understand a user not making that assumption.
Even in consideration of all you've detailed; none of these mod conversations are exposed to users, so even if they are happening, and demonstrate that the mods are in fact quite capable and conscientious in their decisionmaking, it's having relatively little effect on how moderation is perceived.
0
Options
Clint EastwoodMy baby's in there someplaceShe crawled right inRegistered Userregular
A page and a half of saying "this person argues in bad faith, they are terrible. Ignore them" doesn't merit a friendly warning IMO. That is what we're talking about here, right?
Do you enjoy your time posting here or has having to do it for a job made it just a thing that's part of work
I mostly enjoy the posting, I only really post if I'm moderating or doing so for my own entertainment. If I didn't work here I would post much less, but that's more a function of spending 12 years in the same community.
Oh, sorry, I actually meant policy in general, not the name stuff. Like the Glorious Edict, was it solely because of the tone on these boards or was it also in part to get out in front of what feels like a general elevation of hostilities on the net?
The glorious edict was made on a whim based on an afternoon of me thinking about it and given a funny name so that I could take it back and say it was a joke. It was to get in front of the general elevation of hostilities on the net. In the old days, the PA forums were semi-unique in being a place where you could call everyone a shithead. When the entire internet turned into that, I wanted to be something different.
you know, occasionally I sit and think about the old days
I gotta say I don't miss them
we were practically feral
I wasn't a fan of the edict at first but I've come around
I remember before the edict, people would drop all sorts of horrible insults. Sometimes even personal insults because people would admit things in other threads.
The Glorious Edict was a good decision I think.
But damn if I don't miss some of the more creative insults you could throw at someone.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
I don't feel comfortable contacting moderators because I'm afraid they're going to privately bully me
You can always add someone to a private thread, so if a mod is being rude/abusive and you feel it is genuinely unwarranted, do what you would (should?) do if it's anybody else and add Tube to the convo.
If nothing else you will have explained to you why you are being spoken to in that manner.
A page and a half of saying "this person argues in bad faith, they are terrible. Ignore them" doesn't merit a friendly warning IMO. That is what we're talking about here, right?
Well
I think it does
And ultimaty neither of our opinions on the subject matter one iota but luckily for you the people whose opinions do matter agree with you so
Do you enjoy your time posting here or has having to do it for a job made it just a thing that's part of work
I mostly enjoy the posting, I only really post if I'm moderating or doing so for my own entertainment. If I didn't work here I would post much less, but that's more a function of spending 12 years in the same community.
Oh, sorry, I actually meant policy in general, not the name stuff. Like the Glorious Edict, was it solely because of the tone on these boards or was it also in part to get out in front of what feels like a general elevation of hostilities on the net?
The glorious edict was made on a whim based on an afternoon of me thinking about it and given a funny name so that I could take it back and say it was a joke. It was to get in front of the general elevation of hostilities on the net. In the old days, the PA forums were semi-unique in being a place where you could call everyone a shithead. When the entire internet turned into that, I wanted to be something different.
you know, occasionally I sit and think about the old days
I gotta say I don't miss them
we were practically feral
I wasn't a fan of the edict at first but I've come around
I remember before the edict, people would drop all sorts of horrible insults. Sometimes even personal insults because people would admit things in other threads.
The Glorious Edict was a good decision I think.
But damn if I don't miss some of the more creative insults you could throw at someone.
I sorta wish there were more white listed completely toothless insults even if I get why there isn't
A page and a half of saying "this person argues in bad faith, they are terrible. Ignore them" doesn't merit a friendly warning IMO. That is what we're talking about here, right?
I think it makes more sense to discuss moderation in general; individual circumstances are always more complex and don't really fit into what this thread is "for."
Also; talking about specific situations involves indirectly discussing other people who may not want a single personal failing to become an arduous, lengthy discussion point in a thread like this.
+3
Options
Clint EastwoodMy baby's in there someplaceShe crawled right inRegistered Userregular
I'm not trying to be a butt here speed. I hope you don't take it that way.
But for example I know I'm not the most popular guy around by any means and if I was getting dogpiled by people calling me shitty or whatever, I'd feel pretty pissed and want it to stop
The Glorious Edict was hands-down the single best decision the forums ever made and it makes this forum one of the better communities on the internet
Other communities have vague rules about personal insults and the like but they're not as clear as the Edict and as strictly enforced so a lot more personal insults happen
Here, it creates an entire culture where people are more likely to attack someone's opinion instead of them as a person almost reflexively because they know the latter is expressly off-limits ultimately. Like there are ways to make personal attacks without direct insults but since direct insults are the most straightforward it sorta defangs them in a lot of ways and people instead tend to attack each other's opinions more often.
It does not, de facto, elevate the discourse. Your opinion is shit is only marginally better than you are shit in terms of useful discussion, but that margin matters! And the Glorious Edict enforces that margin.
I don't feel comfortable contacting moderators because I'm afraid they're going to privately bully me
I'm just one data point, but every time I've ever privately contacted a mod either to apologize for something (creating a thread that went to hell, posting an image too big, losing my cool, whatever) or just to ask about something they've been real nice about it.
Now, every time I've done it I've been very genial. If you PM them and start a rant my single data point probably won't be useful to you.
It took me a couple tries before I stopped reading that as genital.
I'm not trying to be a butt here speed. I hope you don't take it that way.
But for example I know I'm not the most popular guy around by any means and if I was getting dogpiled by people calling me shitty or whatever, I'd feel pretty pissed and want it to stop
And you'd be right to want it to stop!
My point is that it frequently will stop just from an authority figure saying "cut it out"
And if it doesn't or if it only stops temporarily then by all means eradicate everyone wth a flaming sword of justice
I just think that in the moment it can be easy to lose perspective on how you're coming across, and if possible, it's better for actions to be taken to correct your behavior than to just exclude you from the conversation all together, and I think more liberal use of warnings would accomplish that
I don't feel comfortable contacting moderators because I'm afraid they're going to privately bully me
I'm just one data point, but every time I've ever privately contacted a mod either to apologize for something (creating a thread that went to hell, posting an image too big, losing my cool, whatever) or just to ask about something they've been real nice about it.
Now, every time I've done it I've been very genial. If you PM them and start a rant my single data point probably won't be useful to you.
It took me a couple tries before I stopped reading that as genital.
I have a feeling the mods wouldn't be real nice to me if I was being very genital to them.
Less a question, more a comment - I wish, sometimes, that this forum's culture were a bit less brutally and broadly anti-anime
That joke anime thread last year caused a few forumers I really like to leave the forums (notably, MikeLL and RFilyaw), and that was 50% moderations' fault for making the one thread we got to have here a banfest. Like, I thought some of that thread was actually funny, but the sense of humor got toxic really quickly
Plus, and this is really less relevant now that Stardust Crusaders season 2 is over, I really wanted a an SE++ JoJo thread to happen but I couldn't get that through even on April Fools' day, and I'm still a bit peeved about that
The user gets no points, it doesn't go on their record, and can be easily reversed should a mod feel the person has had a sufficient cooling-off period, and doesn't extend to any other thread in the forum.
Personally I've rarely taken issue with the use of moderation tools but I am frequently uncomfortable with the tone of posts by some mods when in mod mode
i think this is the only real issue I have, yeah
i'd honestly rather just get jailed if the kicking tool is going to be used as a dismissive tool rather than a catalyst for moderation and dialogue
as it stands i feel like moderation borders on shaming
The user gets no points, it doesn't go on their record, and can be easily reversed should a mod feel the person has had a sufficient cooling-off period, and doesn't extend to any other thread in the forum.
And threads refresh in like a week, less if its really heated
Posts
called "kawaii did we do this"
IMO in every instance of thread kicks I've seen, the punished party was acting like a child in the first place.
What should I do with my life? What is my purpose?
http://www.audioentropy.com/
if you tone police the police, who will tone police the tone police
This is a 13+ forum, if usera act like children they will be treated like children. I'm.sure most of you know me and are well aware that I am an idiot who seems to have difficulty policing himself, and every single time I have ever been dealt with by the moderation and administration staff they have been forthright and helpful, even apologetic in some cases.
I have been told (I am paraphrasing here) "yes that forumer is being a fuckhead, but the edict exists for a reason and we will handle this our way, and now unfortunately you have to eat this infraction because of what you did, despite what you said being accurate" in the past.
I think the only real complaint I could make about the moderation of this place is that sometimes they are actually not strict enough.
I feel that using something other than someone's forum name while on the forums, like using someone's real name, can cause a treehouse atmosphere. So I am against that.
I don't have much experience about thread banning, but I have a question about it. Sometimes I go into a thread and it feels like people were thread banned at the time of the thread's creation. This thread is saying that thread banning is more of a reactive measure as an alternative to infractions. Is thread banning at a thread's creation a common thing? Or are my perceptions skewed because I only go to the webcomics thread where crwth was occasionally banned?
expecting that they do this defeats the whole point, though
But thank you, mods + admin
really? I would be surprised if apologizing spared you a ticket in that situation.
Flagrantly breaking rules is sort of a different thing than what I'm talking about
http://www.audioentropy.com/
bleughhhh I am regretting that choice of words
The point I'm making is that there are plenty of times where simply saying "hey, cut it out" will accomplish the same thing as punitive action
http://www.audioentropy.com/
I think we all called him that
The thing is, they do that too
But if you EXPECT that they do that, that kind of defangs the whole process
Anime thread isn't returning, how much I try. I've seen anime specific threads appearing once in a while, and never question it and enjoy it while it lasts.
you know, occasionally I sit and think about the old days
I gotta say I don't miss them
we were practically feral
I wasn't a fan of the edict at first but I've come around
Not really?
I don't see how it defangs anything to have a mod jump in and say "hey quit it" and only follow up with punishment if that goes unheeded
Again, ElJeffe does it all the time in D&D
http://www.audioentropy.com/
Absolutely; the place for this sort of additional transparency would definitely not be within the thread where the moderation occurred, or even (necessarily) the forum. I don't want to sacrifice the integrity and clarity of the discussion itself for the purposes of clarifying moderation.
In terms of the "formalized", public process for dealing with moderator disputes (as zerzhul paraphrased it), it is a two-stage system. I tend to assume there's more discussion going on behind the scenes, but none of that being exposed, I could absolutely understand a user not making that assumption.
Even in consideration of all you've detailed; none of these mod conversations are exposed to users, so even if they are happening, and demonstrate that the mods are in fact quite capable and conscientious in their decisionmaking, it's having relatively little effect on how moderation is perceived.
I remember before the edict, people would drop all sorts of horrible insults. Sometimes even personal insults because people would admit things in other threads.
The Glorious Edict was a good decision I think.
But damn if I don't miss some of the more creative insults you could throw at someone.
You can always add someone to a private thread, so if a mod is being rude/abusive and you feel it is genuinely unwarranted, do what you would (should?) do if it's anybody else and add Tube to the convo.
If nothing else you will have explained to you why you are being spoken to in that manner.
Well
I think it does
And ultimaty neither of our opinions on the subject matter one iota but luckily for you the people whose opinions do matter agree with you so
Hooray
http://www.audioentropy.com/
I sorta wish there were more white listed completely toothless insults even if I get why there isn't
Goofball, doofus, dork, bozo, etc
http://www.audioentropy.com/
I think it makes more sense to discuss moderation in general; individual circumstances are always more complex and don't really fit into what this thread is "for."
Also; talking about specific situations involves indirectly discussing other people who may not want a single personal failing to become an arduous, lengthy discussion point in a thread like this.
But for example I know I'm not the most popular guy around by any means and if I was getting dogpiled by people calling me shitty or whatever, I'd feel pretty pissed and want it to stop
PSN: Robo_Wizard1
Other communities have vague rules about personal insults and the like but they're not as clear as the Edict and as strictly enforced so a lot more personal insults happen
Here, it creates an entire culture where people are more likely to attack someone's opinion instead of them as a person almost reflexively because they know the latter is expressly off-limits ultimately. Like there are ways to make personal attacks without direct insults but since direct insults are the most straightforward it sorta defangs them in a lot of ways and people instead tend to attack each other's opinions more often.
It does not, de facto, elevate the discourse. Your opinion is shit is only marginally better than you are shit in terms of useful discussion, but that margin matters! And the Glorious Edict enforces that margin.
It took me a couple tries before I stopped reading that as genital.
And you'd be right to want it to stop!
My point is that it frequently will stop just from an authority figure saying "cut it out"
And if it doesn't or if it only stops temporarily then by all means eradicate everyone wth a flaming sword of justice
I just think that in the moment it can be easy to lose perspective on how you're coming across, and if possible, it's better for actions to be taken to correct your behavior than to just exclude you from the conversation all together, and I think more liberal use of warnings would accomplish that
http://www.audioentropy.com/
I have a feeling the mods wouldn't be real nice to me if I was being very genital to them.
That joke anime thread last year caused a few forumers I really like to leave the forums (notably, MikeLL and RFilyaw), and that was 50% moderations' fault for making the one thread we got to have here a banfest. Like, I thought some of that thread was actually funny, but the sense of humor got toxic really quickly
Plus, and this is really less relevant now that Stardust Crusaders season 2 is over, I really wanted a an SE++ JoJo thread to happen but I couldn't get that through even on April Fools' day, and I'm still a bit peeved about that
The user gets no points, it doesn't go on their record, and can be easily reversed should a mod feel the person has had a sufficient cooling-off period, and doesn't extend to any other thread in the forum.
i think this is the only real issue I have, yeah
i'd honestly rather just get jailed if the kicking tool is going to be used as a dismissive tool rather than a catalyst for moderation and dialogue
as it stands i feel like moderation borders on shaming
And threads refresh in like a week, less if its really heated