Dear Users Complaining About Moderators

[Mikeyfell]

My problem with the Moderators (Bye everyone...)

is that there's one rule they don't enforce.

there's a rule in the CoC that says you're not allowed to troll other users. and that rule simply never gets enforced.
The victims of trolling are the ones who get punished. mostly because the CoC is broken.

Mentioning that you've been trolled is against the rules because you're not allowed to accuse another user of trolling.
so how do you report them for breaking the trolling rule?

Oh no! There's a flaw in the system!


The moderators also seemingly decided amongst themselves that leaving a positive comment, or telling a joke counts as "Low Content"

I've seen great comments on this site (Not recently because everyone capable of leaving succinct clever comments get banned because of the Low Content rule)
But when I do see one I want to let the poster know that their comment made me smile. and since I agree with it and think it's well stated I have nothing to add by virtue of... the dictionary.

and that means that every single post (Including this one) is either low content disagreement or addendum.
and the knowledge that those are the only 3 types of responses the CoC allows you to recieve every post in every thread is Flame-bate by definition of the CoC


and I pointed that out to the community manager and nothing changed.
So it's not really the mod's fault they just choose to uphold a broken rule set.

You're not allowed to be nice on the Escapist, you're not allowed to be mean either so everyone left is so neutral that there's hardly any humanity left in these forums.
I've seen Low Content posts that were hundreds of words long.

I've been penalized for being nice, I've been penalized for being succinct, I've been penalized for being trolled. I've been Penalized for telling a joke. and it's easy to think the mods are just fucking with you.

The one thing that you can say is abuse of power is when ever the reason you're penalized is "Mod Sass" because that pretty much means that you can be banned at the moderators discretion. because I've never sassed a mod... ever, and yet I've been suspended for "mod sass" 3 times (I think) and they can't be heald accountable because when ever I try to appeal "mod sass" suspensions I just get brickwalled.

But it's still not an "abuse of power" so much as "fair use of over power"

So the next time you want to accuse a mod of "Abuse of power" just send a PM to DrStrangelove and tell him to rewrite the Code of Conduct in a way that promotes healthy forum communication.

 

[2fish]

Dear users complaining about users complaining about moderators,

Dear users complaining about users complaining about users complaining about moderators.

Dear Mods complaining about users complaining about users complaining about users complaining about moderators.

Can't we just accept there will always be people be complaining but as long as you have my blessing their complaints mean nothing?

The few times I have looked into why someone was suspended/ect I can always see the why it was done. Maybe adding a little info at the end when a thread is locked could help. Transparency is the key.

"User violated paragraph 3 line 2 rule regarding wearing of black pants on Tuesday. Per Rules dated on 1900 amended August 18, 2012 the user has been suspended for 3 days as this is the users second offence in this category."

 

[TheRightToArmBears]

The forums of The Escapist have an awful reputation.


http://www.giantbomb.com/forums/general-discussion-30/man-has-anyone-here-been-on-the-escapist-forums-la-390720/

This is slightly unfair. We get a bad reputation, sure, but the lion's share of that is down to us, the users (just read that link you posted). I've heard firsthand from many places complaints about the userbase being a bunch of pretentious douchebags, far more than comments on the moderation (which isn't to say I haven't heard any). If we're going to sit around complaining about our reputation, we're starting in the wrong place.

 

[The Lunatic]

The forums of The Escapist have an awful reputation.


http://www.giantbomb.com/forums/general-discussion-30/man-has-anyone-here-been-on-the-escapist-forums-la-390720/

This is slightly unfair. We get a bad reputation, sure, but the lion's share of that is down to us, the users (just read that link you posted). I've heard firsthand from many places complaints about the userbase being a bunch of pretentious douchebags, far more than comments on the moderation (which isn't to say I haven't heard any). If we're going to sit around complaining about our reputation, we're starting in the wrong place.

Read more of the thread. Admittedly, it does start off that way, but, eventually moves to the topic of rules.


But, on the topic of the reputation we get for the community.

I think (Note, opinion.) that the rules being so strict means that members aren't allowed to converse freely and thus, the only form of conversation allowed is to be very serious and such.

I am of the opinion that the rules being set up and strictly informed in such a way also scares away those whom are more open to friendly conversation.

There's not much I can say that @Mikefell hasn't gone over in a much better way than I could convey.

Plus, the point I was making was not "The forums have a terrible reputation and it's only the moderators fault", more "The forums have a terrible reputation".

However, obviously, I do think the rules are to a degree responsible for that, but, again, opinion.

 

[DudeistBelieve]

I don't know why people have trouble with the rules here. Shit is very relaxed. So long as your being mindful about what you can or can't do.

I like how people are always real quick to accuse us of "abusing our power", but these people never provide any evidence of this.
Funny that.

Isn't it normally standard practice here on the Escapist forums to provid evidence of claims made? "Citation needed" and all that?

The reason why there's no evidence of it is because it doesn't happen.

I actually got Coldster, I think it was, bumped from his mod status accidentally. I really ripped into whatever staff was doing the emails that day.

But the thing to take away from this is the Staff are a bunch of tossers? Best not say that allowed.

 

[DudeistBelieve]

My problem with the Moderators (Bye everyone...)

is that there's one rule they don't enforce.

there's a rule in the CoC that says you're not allowed to troll other users. and that rule simply never gets enforced.
The victims of trolling are the ones who get punished. mostly because the CoC is broken.

Mentioning that you've been trolled is against the rules because you're not allowed to accuse another user of trolling.
so how do you report them for breaking the trolling rule?

Oh no! There's a flaw in the system!

No there's not. You click the little flag in the corner and either choose not to respond or if you do don't resort to name calling. It's really very simple.

 

[The Lunatic]

I actually got Coldster, I think it was, bumped from his mod status accidentally. I really ripped into whatever staff was doing the emails that day.

What's your experience been with the staff whom answer emails anyway?

I've found them pretty hit and miss myself. Some have just been downright rude. Sometimes it's gone from "Nope, you're absolutely in the wrong here". To "The warning has been removed" in the next email.

It seems like a dice roll, frankly.

 

[TheRightToArmBears]

The forums of The Escapist have an awful reputation.


http://www.giantbomb.com/forums/general-discussion-30/man-has-anyone-here-been-on-the-escapist-forums-la-390720/

This is slightly unfair. We get a bad reputation, sure, but the lion's share of that is down to us, the users (just read that link you posted). I've heard firsthand from many places complaints about the userbase being a bunch of pretentious douchebags, far more than comments on the moderation (which isn't to say I haven't heard any). If we're going to sit around complaining about our reputation, we're starting in the wrong place.

Read more of the thread. Admittedly, it does start off that way, but, eventually moves to the topic of rules.


But, on the topic of the reputation we get for the community.

I think (Note, opinion.) that the rules being so strict means that members aren't allowed to converse freely and thus, the only form of conversation allowed is to be very serious and such.

I am of the opinion that the rules being set up and strictly informed in such a way also scares away those whom are more open to friendly conversation.

There's not much I can say that @Mikefell hasn't gone over in a much better way than I could convey.

Plus, the point I was making was not "The forums have a terrible reputation and it's only the moderators fault", more "The forums have a terrible reputation".

However, obviously, I do think the rules are to a degree responsible for that, but, again, opinion.

I agree really. Technically I think we're the 'best' moderated forum, in the sense that it's the cleanest and most proper, and I think that attracts a certain crowd. I think someone in that link mentions the 'games as art' thing that we love to harp on about. We're always talking about games as art, gender equality, social justice, monetisation etc. Not exactly lighthearted topics. Sure, we don't have the same levels of trolling, spam and insults being thrown around, but we lose out on having the same relaxed atmosphere that other forums have. We couldn't have some of the sillier threads I've been involved in elsewhere here (although it's easier on the smaller forums with tighter communities), partially because of the moderation and partially because of the userbase.

That said, again, it's not really a point for the moderators. They're enforcing rules, not making them- If they didn't enforce the rules like they do, they probably wouldn't be moderators anymore.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

I'm sure lots of people would love to provide evidence of mods unfairly using their power, but there's nowhere on this site to do that publicly, and if you do post it in one of the public forums you can more infractions and the thread gets locked instantly and you're told to PM the mods instead. Funny that.

It's kind of hard to provide evidence when you aren't allowed to publicly talk to anyone about how things are being handled, and it's impossible to publicly provide evidence when all that does is visit more mod wrath upon you.

Why do you need to go public? I don't know why people are so keen to air their dirty laundry.

The appeal form / contact form / complaints form is NOT public for a reason.
This isn't 'trial by publicity'. Correspondence with the site staff is kept private because it's no one else's business.

Ah yes the "correct channels". The ones that are totally private and free of oversight leaving the mods totally free to ignore them. The mods will never be accountable until grievances with them can be aired in public instead of a dark soundproof room.

See my reply to Dirty Hipsters, above.

Also, mods aren't involved with the 'correct channels' (which go to someone higher up the chain from us), so how can we be "totally free to ignore them" if we're not even involved with them?

Furthermore, any time an infraction is overturned, the mod who issued it is notified, and even officially warned if the mistakes become too numerous. Just because you don't see it happen, doesn't mean it's not happening.
In this thread I've already been told that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", well, I can fire that right back too.

You can't say that there's no evidence of mods misusing their authority if there's no way for people to publicly provide evidence to the contrary. Saying otherwise just means you're sticking your head in the sand and pretending that everything is perfect and that there are never any problems.

You say it's no one else's business what happens between moderators and users, and I think that in some cases you're right, but it should be up to the user in question whether they feel that it's no one else's business or whether they want to share their experience with others. The only reason that you would be afraid of people doing this is if the users in question had valid problems with moderation. People who are obviously in the wrong would get slapped down by the community pretty fast because as much as it looks like people here have a problem with the mods we totally defend mod actions in most situations since it's those actions that keep this forum as civil as it is. More transparency could only make the moderation of the forums more consistent and fair.

 

[Vendor-Lazarus]

I'm a bit hesitant to join in here, but I felt I needed to at least weigh in with my own opinion.

I've been a member since March 2009 (and lurked a few more years before that), yet I only have a hundred posts to my name.
The reason I've only just starting to post at bit more often is that it is only now I feel I have a slightly firmer grasp of how the rules/mods work.
Seeing lots of people being warned or suspended or banned, without an explicit stated reason, makes me very very wary of posting the "wrong" thing by mistake.
The fact that I'm also not good with conflicts, or stating my own case with such conviction as others here are wont to do, makes me only post lighthearted or opinion-posts.

If the reason was stated more clearly (as other before have mentioned better) I would probably feel a bit better.


("I'm sorry, please don't ban me"[footnote] Sorry, I had to end that with both a joke and an apology..Call it self-defense.[/footnote])

 

[Sleepy Sol]

I have never had any action taken against me by the moderation in 3 years on these forums, but I've always been careful to toe the line. Though I generally do my best not to offend anyone on the internet anyways.

Honestly, there have been several times in the past few years where I just shake my head in disbelief at some of the moderation that occurs, and it's sometimes heavily deterred me from posting more often.

I tend to fall into the crowd that believes moderation should be much more transparent on this site, to be frank.

 

[Mikeyfell]

My problem with the Moderators (Bye everyone...)

is that there's one rule they don't enforce.

there's a rule in the CoC that says you're not allowed to troll other users. and that rule simply never gets enforced.
The victims of trolling are the ones who get punished. mostly because the CoC is broken.

Mentioning that you've been trolled is against the rules because you're not allowed to accuse another user of trolling.
so how do you report them for breaking the trolling rule?

Oh no! There's a flaw in the system!

No there's not. You click the little flag in the corner and either choose not to respond or if you do don't resort to name calling. It's really very simple.

I've never seen a troll post that got banned or suspended or anything.
and I look at every post I see that got moderatored.

and it's about 20% of the time that the suspended post is the victim which makes me think that mods don't read other posts in the comment chain that lead to the punishment for context. Which also isn't abuse of power.

so abuse of power is the wrong complaint to be leveled against the mods

 

[Lilani]

I'm a bit hesitant to join in here, but I felt I needed to at least weigh in with my own opinion.

I've been a member since March 2009 (and lurked a few more years before that), yet I only have a hundred posts to my name.
The reason I've only just starting to post at bit more often is that it is only now I feel I have a slightly firmer grasp of how the rules/mods work.
Seeing lots of people being warned or suspended or banned, without an explicit stated reason, makes me very very wary of posting the "wrong" thing by mistake.
The fact that I'm also not good with conflicts, or stating my own case with such conviction as others here are wont to do, makes me only post lighthearted or opinion-posts.

If the reason was stated more clearly (as other before have mentioned better) I would probably feel a bit better.


("I'm sorry, please don't ban me"[footnote] Sorry, I had to end that with both a joke and an apology..Call it self-defense.[/footnote])

Most of the time a link will be attached to the person ho was suspended or banned to the post which got them suspended or banned (as long as the thread still exists, and to my knowledge only a couple of threads have ever been completely eradicated EVER). And then you can read the post to see what happened. The mods will sometimes edit the content of these posts, but only if they have links to or images of offensive things, like porn or screamers or whatever.

There is a very fine line to ride when criticising someone here, and I'm not saying that's a bad thing. You can say a person has lied or deliberately misrepresented something, but you can't say they are an idiot, troll, moron, cockhead, or other such insults. And there is a certain way to address certain groups in general. Recently in a thread in the religion and politics board, a user got a warning for making the statement that anybody on birth control is too lazy to close their legs, which is just unnescessarily slanderous. They weren't addressing a specific person, but they were ignoring the conversation just to make pejorative statements that were disrupting the thread.

You can always talk to the mods about what is and isn't okay, and if you feel you've been unjustly punished you can appeal to them. In my experience they're a cool bunch of people (emphasis on PEOPLE), and despite what some might say they aren't here just to torment people or silence them out of spite.

 

[Vendor-Lazarus]

SNIP

SNIP

Thank you for a very well-written and concise summary of my concerns.
Sadly, I already knew most of it but it doesn't hurt to have confirmation. It might also help others understand things better.

I almost always check to see why a person was "wrathed". Sometimes it clear, other times, not so clear.
Occasionally it's contradicting and confusing, but as you pointed out, mods are people too.

Thanks again for taking the time!

 

[Padwolf]

I don't get the issues either. I love the moderation here, I think it's just, it's fitting and it's just all round great. I'm just here to say thank you Moderators for doing a damn fine job and I appreciate all the hard work you guys do! Without you guys this place wouldn't be as awesome as it is. You get so much abuse for it. We should have a Mod Appreciation Thread for a change.

 

[Atmos Duality]

I really like that we can't see threads that do this, on the Escapist.

Bump

---
Bump

---
Bump

---
Bump bump

---
Bumpity bump

---
^

---
^

---
^

---
^

Now there's a trigger for some unpleasant flashbacks.
Mass bumping for attention was one of my oldest forum pet peeves, and one I'm very glad doesn't much exist on this site.

OT: Seriously, it's not that hard to avoid mod wrath. For the people whining about "unfairness/censorship" and such, consider the number of stupid threads that regularly deteriorate into passive-aggressive mudslinging; I'd say they're being pretty lenient.

Very few subjects are actually taboo as long as you don't openly attack one another or invoke the trolls.

 

[wulf3n]

...uh what is wrathing?

It's short for "mod wrath" / "mod wrathing", which is an informal way of referring to moderation infractions (warnings/probations/suspensions/bans).

Presumably the term comes from this:

Real Ultimate Poster
Over 5000 posts without incurring moderator wrath. [6 month minimum]

Oh. Well that makes sense.

I thought it was something like a vendetta or war between forum goers.

 

[Darks63]

I'm sure lots of people would love to provide evidence of mods unfairly using their power, but there's nowhere on this site to do that publicly, and if you do post it in one of the public forums you can more infractions and the thread gets locked instantly and you're told to PM the mods instead. Funny that.

It's kind of hard to provide evidence when you aren't allowed to publicly talk to anyone about how things are being handled, and it's impossible to publicly provide evidence when all that does is visit more mod wrath upon you.

Why do you need to go public? I don't know why people are so keen to air their dirty laundry.

The appeal form / contact form / complaints form is NOT public for a reason.
This isn't 'trial by publicity'. Correspondence with the site staff is kept private because it's no one else's business.

Ah yes the "correct channels". The ones that are totally private and free of oversight leaving the mods totally free to ignore them. The mods will never be accountable until grievances with them can be aired in public instead of a dark soundproof room.

See my reply to Dirty Hipsters, above.

Also, mods aren't involved with the 'correct channels' (which go to someone higher up the chain from us), so how can we be "totally free to ignore them" if we're not even involved with them?

Furthermore, any time an infraction is overturned, the mod who issued it is notified, and even officially warned if the mistakes become too numerous. Just because you don't see it happen, doesn't mean it's not happening.
In this thread I've already been told that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", well, I can fire that right back too.

You can't say that there's no evidence of mods misusing their authority if there's no way for people to publicly provide evidence to the contrary. Saying otherwise just means you're sticking your head in the sand and pretending that everything is perfect and that there are never any problems.

You say it's no one else's business what happens between moderators and users, and I think that in some cases you're right, but it should be up to the user in question whether they feel that it's no one else's business or whether they want to share their experience with others. The only reason that you would be afraid of people doing this is if the users in question had valid problems with moderation. People who are obviously in the wrong would get slapped down by the community pretty fast because as much as it looks like people here have a problem with the mods we totally defend mod actions in most situations since it's those actions that keep this forum as civil as it is. More transparency could only make the moderation of the forums more consistent and fair.

the issue i see with opening up the moderation procedures to the forum public at large even at the user behest is that it could be abuse easily. The user in question could "rally the crowd" So to the speak and make the atmosphere between users and mods much more personal and hostile. This open ground could also easily be tuned into a hate the mods/staff fest where people just lob insults for the sake of venting with no real reasoning behind it. Also such a possible sub forum or thread could also draw trolls and trouble makers with both above intents like flies to sh!t.

the already mentioned Jim episode was almost a demo of what would happen in such thread and that one got nasty and lead to a lot of warning and shots being fired back and forth between mods and users.

 

[Caliostro]

Right, this seems... civil enough, so let's try something: If you have any questions for me post them as a reply to me (so I get a notification). I'm going to sleep now and I'll reply to what I can tomorrow. If anyone's interested that is.

Think of this as a small AMA I guess.

 

[truckspond]

Right, this seems... civil enough, so let's try something: If you have any questions for me post them as a reply to me (so I get a notification). I'm going to sleep now and I'll reply to what I can tomorrow. If anyone's interested that is.

Think of this as a small AMA I guess.

Have you ever considered adding exceptions to the "low content" rule for situations where such a short response can be easily justified by the topic at hand?