As we get older in forum age, the tone has changed a lot. I love that. I think all the mods have done a fantastic job making a community that is all in all pretty cohesive and incredibly more inclusive than ten years ago.
How do you deal with constant walking of that line? And more importantly, I think we don't report it because it is never over the line behavior, but like, if you added it up for a long time, it would be completely over the line.
Do we report stuff like that? Do we just ignore it?
I've read many reports where I did not take any direct action, but did note that I've seen similar behavior from the forumer in question before, and we try to make sure it doesn't become a consistent behavior. At this point we've banned many of the outright hostile forumers, and people have learned to be generally well behaved, but the problem of persistent low-level assholes is a bit of a harder nut to crack.
I will admit, I'm sometimes loathe to press the report button because even if there are geese about, I enjoy the not-geese talk and don't want the whole thread locked because of their behavior.
I am paranoid about requesting mod attention in the webcomics thread for this reason.
It would have to be an extreme amount of badness over an extended period of time for us to shut down a thread forever. It's obviously happened a handful of times before but we will always deal with a person first and the topic second. A couple people being awful? We'll get them. Everyone being awful? Yeah, that's a paddlin.
Whippy on
0
Options
JacobkoshGamble a stamp.I can show you how to be a real man!Moderatormod
Do mods for each specific forum have assigned threads that they wouldn't normally be interested in but browse anyway to keep up with things? Or do they pretty much just visit threads they don't care about when things get reported?
I can only speak for D&D, but "assigned," no. it's much more loose and ad-hoc. I try to pop in and do spot checks on random threads occasionally but we've gone literal years without reports from some of them (like certain sports threads) and they seem fine every time I look into them so it's not anything that anyone feels any strong pressure to keep constant, 100% tabs on.
On the other hand, when you get a thread that comes along and it's just obviously going to be a category five, like "Rand Paul Donates Korans to Gamergate" or something, I might be on it like the Eye of Sauron for hours at a time and only stop when it seems to be winding down or another mod logs in that I can hand it off to.
When making decisions on who is a mod, are any considerations given for representation of certain under - represented groups of people, in order to provide a more diverse leadership group?
i would actually hope this gets answered as well before the thread ends
Do you think there is a danger the forumers will adjust to encouraged reporting faster than you will
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
0
Options
PiptheFairFrequently not in boats.Registered Userregular
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
I think that problem users who want to reform may have a better shot with a name change. Have you ever considered this as an exception to the no name changes policy?
I think that problem users who want to reform may have a better shot with a name change. Have you ever considered this as an exception to the no name changes policy?
They are literally the last people who would ever get it.
A duck! on
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
I think that problem users who want to reform may have a better shot with a name change. Have you ever considered this as an exception to the no name changes policy?
They are literally the last people who would ever get it.
Sometimes a lot of the problem is that people won't let go of past behavior and actually let someone who is trying to change reform though. If people read everything a poster says with a hypercritical eye looking for the worst possible interpretation, what chance does someone making a good faith effort to turn the corner really have?
I think it would also help with the dog piling problem.
0
Options
ceresWhen the last moon is cast over the last star of morningAnd the future has past without even a last desperate warningRegistered User, Moderatormod
When making decisions on who is a mod, are any considerations given for representation of certain under - represented groups of people, in order to provide a more diverse leadership group?
This is purely, 100% my observation and reflects the views of no one but me, but I get the feeling that people don't know or understand how diverse the mod staff actually is. I see people say things like this, go down the list in my head of race, gender (cis, nb, and trans), and sexual orientation represented by the mod staff and go o_O every time.
Part of me actually enjoys the fact that people don't have this information aggregated somewhere, because they don't really need it. We're all volunteers and we all do what we came here to do and Tube never, ever asks us to play the token [minority] to handle tricky situations that could put us under fire from other members of the [minority] group. If something like that comes up, he asks for input and handles it himself because that's his job. That's not something many users see, but I have a deep appreciation for it.
ceres on
And it seems like all is dying, and would leave the world to mourn
I think that problem users who want to reform may have a better shot with a name change. Have you ever considered this as an exception to the no name changes policy?
When making decisions on who is a mod, are any considerations given for representation of certain under - represented groups of people, in order to provide a more diverse leadership group?
It's something we take into consideration. We can't weigh it too heavily because the pool we have to choose from is already very limited. Our staff are already relatively diverse, just from picking the right people for the job.
I think that problem users who want to reform may have a better shot with a name change. Have you ever considered this as an exception to the no name changes policy?
They are literally the last people who would ever get it.
Sometimes a lot of the problem is that people won't let go of past behavior and actually let someone who is trying to change reform though. If people read everything a poster says with a hypercritical eye looking for the worst possible interpretation, what chance does someone making a good faith effort to turn the corner really have?
I think it would also help with the dog piling problem.
It seems like that would just reward/excuse shitty behavior
'Act however you want and when you get sick of it, don't worry - we'll just let you change your identity so you don't have to take any responsibility for it!'
Yeah, one of the reasons I use this handle everywhere is that it makes me really think about what I just typed before I hit submit post. I delete a ton of drafts.
The other reason is for some reason this name is never taken.
Posts
I've read many reports where I did not take any direct action, but did note that I've seen similar behavior from the forumer in question before, and we try to make sure it doesn't become a consistent behavior. At this point we've banned many of the outright hostile forumers, and people have learned to be generally well behaved, but the problem of persistent low-level assholes is a bit of a harder nut to crack.
It would have to be an extreme amount of badness over an extended period of time for us to shut down a thread forever. It's obviously happened a handful of times before but we will always deal with a person first and the topic second. A couple people being awful? We'll get them. Everyone being awful? Yeah, that's a paddlin.
I can only speak for D&D, but "assigned," no. it's much more loose and ad-hoc. I try to pop in and do spot checks on random threads occasionally but we've gone literal years without reports from some of them (like certain sports threads) and they seem fine every time I look into them so it's not anything that anyone feels any strong pressure to keep constant, 100% tabs on.
On the other hand, when you get a thread that comes along and it's just obviously going to be a category five, like "Rand Paul Donates Korans to Gamergate" or something, I might be on it like the Eye of Sauron for hours at a time and only stop when it seems to be winding down or another mod logs in that I can hand it off to.
So basically, it depends.
i would actually hope this gets answered as well before the thread ends
steam | Dokkan: 868846562
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
good god why
For the Spaghetti-Os picture, of course.
They are literally the last people who would ever get it.
Sometimes a lot of the problem is that people won't let go of past behavior and actually let someone who is trying to change reform though. If people read everything a poster says with a hypercritical eye looking for the worst possible interpretation, what chance does someone making a good faith effort to turn the corner really have?
I think it would also help with the dog piling problem.
This is purely, 100% my observation and reflects the views of no one but me, but I get the feeling that people don't know or understand how diverse the mod staff actually is. I see people say things like this, go down the list in my head of race, gender (cis, nb, and trans), and sexual orientation represented by the mod staff and go o_O every time.
Part of me actually enjoys the fact that people don't have this information aggregated somewhere, because they don't really need it. We're all volunteers and we all do what we came here to do and Tube never, ever asks us to play the token [minority] to handle tricky situations that could put us under fire from other members of the [minority] group. If something like that comes up, he asks for input and handles it himself because that's his job. That's not something many users see, but I have a deep appreciation for it.
No treats for dipshits.
It's something we take into consideration. We can't weigh it too heavily because the pool we have to choose from is already very limited. Our staff are already relatively diverse, just from picking the right people for the job.
It seems like that would just reward/excuse shitty behavior
'Act however you want and when you get sick of it, don't worry - we'll just let you change your identity so you don't have to take any responsibility for it!'
The other reason is for some reason this name is never taken.
I liked Borfase the human being
I hated Borfase the guy on the internet