*

Offline xasop

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9776
  • Professional computer somebody
    • View Profile
Improving forum moderation practices
« on: October 22, 2015, 11:13:20 AM »
While I don't think flatearther43.2's posting was any great contribution to the forum, I do think the way he was handled highlights some deficiencies in the way we do moderation. In particular, being arbitrarily banned for spamming in CN, despite that being its stated purpose, was one of my main complaints about the other site. Regardless of whether we think flatearther43.2 was acting in good faith, the fact remains that we were unclear about what the consequences of his actions would be, which is always a slippery slope to get onto.

I don't necessarily think we need amendments to the rules; we can't (and shouldn't) be trying to cover every possible case. However, I do think it's important that people know where they stand before a ban is inflicted, and the warning log indicates that he was not given any warnings. This is especially important when he hasn't violated any particular rule.

This also isn't an isolated case; we lost Yaakov in a similar bout of inconsistent moderation (he'd had lesser punishments for more severe infractions in the past), and we're now unnecessarily splitting posts off. I'm not saying Saddam's post added anything to the thread, but there's a point at which moderation itself becomes more disruptive than the post being moderated, and I think that's a line we crossed here.

My original vision for this forum, and something I'd still like to see upheld, is that our members (or at least, the regulars who have established themselves in the community) are treated like adults and allowed to self-moderate. Yes, this will result in the occasional off-topic post, but babying them by splitting even the most minor infractions, and hitting them with bans without warning, are both more likely to breed resentment than to produce any long-term gains.

I do think that a good first step would be a public moderation log, although I'm currently travelling through Europe and won't have time to implement that for another few weeks. If someone else wants to have a go, feel free. Beyond that, maybe some manifesto changes are in order, but I'm really not sure of the best way to approach this.

I'm posting this in S&C (rather than the staff forum) because I'd like to open it up for public discussion right off the bat. This is everyone's community, and you should all have a say in how the forum should be run.
« Last Edit: October 29, 2015, 08:46:41 PM by Parsifal »
when you try to mock anyone while also running the flat earth society. Lol

*

Offline juner

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10175
    • View Profile
Re: A second look at flatearther43.2's suggestions
« Reply #1 on: October 22, 2015, 12:34:59 PM »
Yaakov was actually a contributing member, even if prone to bouts of personal attacks against members. FE43.2 was literally just abusing the forum, at least in my opinion. If it is our official stance that we don't care if that happens, even in the lower, then so be it. It would have been beneficial to have more feedback after the concern was previously raised. The ban was to stop the action in progress, which I have no idea how long it would have continued for. I could have warned him against that specific behavior in that specific instance, but I just wanted the behavior occurring at that time to cease. I made a choice, right or wrong, that I can live with given that nothing else was being done. I am happy to refrain from doing so in the future.

*

Offline xasop

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9776
  • Professional computer somebody
    • View Profile
Re: A second look at flatearther43.2's suggestions
« Reply #2 on: October 22, 2015, 12:41:48 PM »
Yaakov was actually a contributing member, even if prone to bouts of personal attacks against members. FE43.2 was literally just abusing the forum, at least in my opinion. If it is our official stance that we don't care if that happens, even in the lower, then so be it. It would have been beneficial to have more feedback after the concern was previously raised. The ban was to stop the action in progress, which I have no idea how long it would have continued for. I could have warned him against that specific behavior in that specific instance, but I just wanted the behavior occurring at that time to cease. I made a choice, right or wrong, that I can live with given that nothing else was being done. I am happy to refrain from doing so in the future.

I agree, it would have been nice to have feedback earlier, although I was travelling when that thread was made and only had a short while a day to read FES.

In any case, to be clear, I'm not trying to lay blame on anyone. I just want to make FES as good as it can possibly be, and this seems like something that can be improved upon. I don't hold a grudge about anything that happened, I only want to learn from it.

I also want to clarify that I'm not saying he shouldn't have been banned, only that he should have been given the opportunity to correct his behaviour, knowing that the alternative consequence would be a ban. While I agree that it's no huge loss in this particular case, I think it's for the best that we hold everyone to the same standard of being informed of the consequences of their actions. We as admins and mods are only human, and our (potentially flawed) reading of someone's motives shouldn't get in the way of moderation.
when you try to mock anyone while also running the flat earth society. Lol

Offline Blanko

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2471
    • View Profile
Re: A second look at flatearther43.2's suggestions
« Reply #3 on: October 22, 2015, 12:44:27 PM »
I would like to know how the moderation in Yaakov's case was "inconsistent". We had discussed the possibility of placing him in the purgatory as a last resort way back in March, and I don't really see how purgatory is a harsher punishment than outright banning him as we had done in the past.

*

Offline xasop

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9776
  • Professional computer somebody
    • View Profile
Re: A second look at flatearther43.2's suggestions
« Reply #4 on: October 22, 2015, 04:04:16 PM »
I would like to know how the moderation in Yaakov's case was "inconsistent". We had discussed the possibility of placing him in the purgatory as a last resort way back in March

We had, but I don't think a few offhand comments about atheists in an otherwise productive thread warrants a last resort. He had been contributing productively for a few months beforehand, so at the very least, we should have warned him once he started back on that road rather than immediately jumping to the most severe option.

and I don't really see how purgatory is a harsher punishment than outright banning him as we had done in the past.

Outright bans have expiration dates. He always knew when he could come back and return to posting. Purgatory is indefinite, and given that he was placed into purgatory for a relatively minor offence after a long period of good behaviour, it must have seemed impossible for him to redeem himself. I'm honestly not surprised he gave up and deleted his account, but I am disappointed, because he had just seemed to be getting under control at that point.
when you try to mock anyone while also running the flat earth society. Lol

Offline Blanko

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2471
    • View Profile
Re: A second look at flatearther43.2's suggestions
« Reply #5 on: October 22, 2015, 05:17:22 PM »
I would like to know how the moderation in Yaakov's case was "inconsistent". We had discussed the possibility of placing him in the purgatory as a last resort way back in March

We had, but I don't think a few offhand comments about atheists in an otherwise productive thread warrants a last resort. He had been contributing productively for a few months beforehand, so at the very least, we should have warned him once he started back on that road rather than immediately jumping to the most severe option.

and I don't really see how purgatory is a harsher punishment than outright banning him as we had done in the past.

Outright bans have expiration dates. He always knew when he could come back and return to posting. Purgatory is indefinite, and given that he was placed into purgatory for a relatively minor offence after a long period of good behaviour, it must have seemed impossible for him to redeem himself. I'm honestly not surprised he gave up and deleted his account, but I am disappointed, because he had just seemed to be getting under control at that point.

It wasn't for "offhand comments about atheists", it was for targeted insults much like what he had gotten punished for in the past. I don't believe there's any reason to warn him when he already knows what behaviour is expected from him, nor do I think several months of good behaviour counts for anything if he then goes and reverts back to the behaviour that has gotten him banned several times. That is not "getting under control". If he had the intention or willingness to change his ways, he wouldn't make the same mistakes over and over again. I told him that he'd be taken off purgatory if he showed improvement, and clearly he wasn't up to the task.

If anything, it would be inconsistent to arbitrarily place Yaakov back into a blank slate. It wasn't an issue with his previous bans, and if it had been, you should have raised concern about it. Perhaps you think it was too severe in retrospect since he ended up deleting his account? I couldn't have possibly predicted that, much like Junker couldn't have predicted that fe43 would delete his account. I don't think moderation should be based on guessing what the user's response might be.

*

Offline lolwut?

  • *
  • Posts: 1160
  • -flatearther43.2
    • View Profile
Re: A second look at flatearther43.2's suggestions
« Reply #6 on: October 22, 2015, 05:23:17 PM »
Here's how you can fucking solve this:  Just create a shitcan of s sub forum called shit dump or whatever the fuck, then I can pots HR tags till i fucking die.
-flatearther43.2
-flatearther43.2

*

Offline Pongo

  • Most Educated Flat-Earther
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 754
    • View Profile
Re: A second look at flatearther43.2's suggestions
« Reply #7 on: October 22, 2015, 05:42:59 PM »
Here's how you can fucking solve this:  Just create a shitcan of s sub forum called shit dump or whatever the fuck, then I can pots HR tags till i fucking die.
-flatearther43.2

I mean, do you need to have a place where you can just spam things?  Can't you just host your own web forum and then post to your heart's content?

*

Offline lolwut?

  • *
  • Posts: 1160
  • -flatearther43.2
    • View Profile
Re: A second look at flatearther43.2's suggestions
« Reply #8 on: October 22, 2015, 05:45:23 PM »
Here's how you can fucking solve this:  Just create a shitcan of s sub forum called shit dump or whatever the fuck, then I can pots HR tags till i fucking die.
-flatearther43.2

I mean, do you need to have a place where you can just spam things?  Can't you just host your own web forum and then post to your heart's content?
Yes.  No.
-flatearther43.2

*

Offline Pongo

  • Most Educated Flat-Earther
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 754
    • View Profile
Re: A second look at flatearther43.2's suggestions
« Reply #9 on: October 22, 2015, 06:19:39 PM »
Here's how you can fucking solve this:  Just create a shitcan of s sub forum called shit dump or whatever the fuck, then I can pots HR tags till i fucking die.
-flatearther43.2

I mean, do you need to have a place where you can just spam things?  Can't you just host your own web forum and then post to your heart's content?
Yes.  No.

Are you able provide supporting arguments for your stated needs and inabilities to self-host a website?

*

Offline lolwut?

  • *
  • Posts: 1160
  • -flatearther43.2
    • View Profile
Re: A second look at flatearther43.2's suggestions
« Reply #10 on: October 22, 2015, 06:27:54 PM »
Here's how you can fucking solve this:  Just create a shitcan of s sub forum called shit dump or whatever the fuck, then I can pots HR tags till i fucking die.
-flatearther43.2

I mean, do you need to have a place where you can just spam things?  Can't you just host your own web forum and then post to your heart's content?
Yes.  No.

Are you able provide supporting arguments for your stated needs and inabilities to self-host a website?
No. No. Anymore questions before I report you for low content posting?
-flatearther43.2

*

Offline Pongo

  • Most Educated Flat-Earther
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 754
    • View Profile
Re: A second look at flatearther43.2's suggestions
« Reply #11 on: October 22, 2015, 06:40:52 PM »
No. No. Anymore questions before I report you for low content posting?

Just one, then what I'm sure is going to be an ineffectual meandering.

Why do you need to post in a manor detrimental to others enjoyment?

I understand that the rules may seem like guidelines at times, this is because they are designed to create a culture of openness; as in not overbearing moderation or worrying about stepping on egg shells when posting.  This latitude grants a user many freedoms to do many things, including some that may not be considered tasteful, socially healthy, or even good for the forum. 

Just as in life, I can do many things that, upon reflection, may not be the best.  For example, I can drink my own urine.  I probably shouldn't drink it, but I can.  It's not breaking any laws and I may even enjoy it.  However, just as I can and shouldn't drink my own urine you both can and shouldn't try to exploit the maximum amount of rule bending that you can.  It will lead to more rules being created and a stricter moderation team that will produce an antithetical culture to the one that drew you here in the first place.

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7653
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: A second look at flatearther43.2's suggestions
« Reply #12 on: October 22, 2015, 06:57:59 PM »
A warning first was the thing to do, in my opinion.  While I agree that stopping the posts immediately was a concern, there are other methods.  Not sure how much power mods have, but can they set group permissions?  Like, make pergatoy non-posting anywhere, just for an hour?  Or lock posting in CN?  Just enough to stop the behavior until the warning is visible?
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

*

Offline xasop

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9776
  • Professional computer somebody
    • View Profile
Re: A second look at flatearther43.2's suggestions
« Reply #13 on: October 23, 2015, 12:42:58 AM »
It wasn't for "offhand comments about atheists", it was for targeted insults much like what he had gotten punished for in the past. I don't believe there's any reason to warn him when he already knows what behaviour is expected from him, nor do I think several months of good behaviour counts for anything if he then goes and reverts back to the behaviour that has gotten him banned several times. That is not "getting under control". If he had the intention or willingness to change his ways, he wouldn't make the same mistakes over and over again. I told him that he'd be taken off purgatory if he showed improvement, and clearly he wasn't up to the task.

Okay, perhaps my recollection of the incident is faulty. I don't want to get into an argument over a fait accompli, so I won't go back and check. What I will say is that the purpose of the warning wouldn't be to tell him that the behaviour is unacceptable -- he obviously already knows that -- but to tell him what the consequences will now be, given the ramp up in severity.

I think it is vitally important that everyone knows what the penalty for a particular offence will be prior to its implementation, regardless of who they are or what the offence is (barring very obviously obscene cases like posting CP). It may not have made any difference in the long run in Yaakov's case, but if we can maintain a high standard of consistent and transparent moderation even in such cases, we will engender a similarly high degree of confidence from posters.

If anything, it would be inconsistent to arbitrarily place Yaakov back into a blank slate. It wasn't an issue with his previous bans, and if it had been, you should have raised concern about it.

I'm not suggesting we give him a blank slate, only that we make it clear to him what the revised consequence is to be. By all means, at the first sign of trouble after that point, he should have been placed into Purgatory.

Perhaps you think it was too severe in retrospect since he ended up deleting his account? I couldn't have possibly predicted that, much like Junker couldn't have predicted that fe43 would delete his account. I don't think moderation should be based on guessing what the user's response might be.

I agree, and that's not the case at all.
when you try to mock anyone while also running the flat earth society. Lol

Thork

Re: A second look at flatearther43.2's suggestions
« Reply #14 on: October 24, 2015, 07:59:57 PM »
Here's how you can fucking solve this:  Just create a shitcan of s sub forum called shit dump or whatever the fuck, then I can pots HR tags till i fucking die.
-flatearther43.2


Probably the only thing this imbecile has ever written that I agree with.

CN has become the de facto dump for all that is crap on our site. But it also doubles as the only place you can truly be candid in views and expression without retribution of any sorts. You can be racist, bang on about Nazis, how much you hate Bruce Jenner, compare homosexuals to animals, things that don't readily sit in any other forum. Whilst we call it complete nonsense, some of the more amusing and edgy threads end up there because its free rules allow that kind of conversation. And then a halfwit like flatearther43 uses browser breaking posts purely because he is an anti-social moron without the capacity to engage in a conversation with another human.

A dump would allow purely facile posts to be separated from those in which the user does at least attempt to construct a sentence, even if it is deliberate troll bait or of an extremist nature. There is a difference between wanting to remind everyone that Blanko kisses boys and making a post with 20,000 hr tags in it. One is mindless content, the other is deliberately to ruin other people's enjoyment of the forum.
« Last Edit: October 24, 2015, 08:02:35 PM by Dr David Thork »

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: A second look at flatearther43.2's suggestions
« Reply #15 on: October 24, 2015, 11:08:34 PM »
But Thork

Every single thing you've listed here would belong in "shit dump" anyway.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

Thork

Re: A second look at flatearther43.2's suggestions
« Reply #16 on: October 24, 2015, 11:54:27 PM »
nah. There are some threads that in general are well maintained and everyone plays along. The greatest out of context quotes, get involved, what a self-absorbed douche, post a funny fail/funny, nowant/dowant/picture/porn thing, Markjo jokes edition ... and at the moment all those things that have some kind of meaning to members here can be shat all over by someone writing in 86pt text for 40 posts.

It is also annoying when one person makes 70 threads in CN, all just noise and everything else is bumped down the reading list. The fact is some people are just anti-social when they come here. If we are to continue to give everyone a voice no matter how annoying it is, we need a place where that voice can be ignored without losing the complete nonsense threads we are interested in.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: A second look at flatearther43.2's suggestions
« Reply #17 on: October 25, 2015, 01:20:07 AM »
So what you're saying is you've made a bunch of threads in CN which should have been made in the Lounge, and now you want to promote CN to be a second Lounge while creating a new CN.

How, exactly, will that stop the problem from reoccurring? If people want to post their threads in the "anything goes" section, surely they should be aware that anything may go in that section. Creating a new CN board and redefining current CN as something else will only delay the problem. You'll make new threads there and then regret that you haven't made them elsewhere.

If anything, it sounds to me like an appropriate solution may be to lift some of the CN threads back up to the Lounge.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

*

Offline juner

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10175
    • View Profile
A second look at flatearther43.2's suggestions
« Reply #18 on: October 25, 2015, 02:00:31 AM »
Has it been decided that CN is an "anything goes" forum? Until recent events, it's never been a problem, so I think a formal definition needs to be made. If that is the case, then I agree. I'd also agree that any of the warnings/bans of FE43.2 would have been unjust.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: A second look at flatearther43.2's suggestions
« Reply #19 on: October 25, 2015, 02:19:21 AM »
As I recall it, that was the agreement, but admittedly I can't find it written down anywhere. I'd argue that board descriptions make a strong case for that being the case right now, though:

The Lounge
A place where users can introduce themselves or talk about anything that doesn't fit in the other boards. Light chat and socialising are encouraged!

Complete Nonsense
If you have something to say that doesn't make any sense and probably doesn't need to be said, this is the place to do it. Also, every day is Christmas here.

The Lounge is for things that don't fit other boards, but which still constitute an actual discussion. It's also hidden away from search engines and newcomers, so it offers the same level of "privacy" as CN. CN is for, well, complete nonsense. I honestly don't think the current descriptions could be misconstrued.

I'm not advocating that these things be set in stone, but the current proposal really doesn't strike me as making much sense.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume