Poll: A Proposal for Better Moderation

[Drathnoxis]

Everybody here probably knows that these forums are strictly moderated. This helps to facilitate calm and reasonable discussion, while keeping hostility down. However, I feel that the punishment system is, in many cases, unnecessarily harsh. This has been causing the site to lose many, many [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.404382-Lament-For-The-Fallen-Banned?page=1] passionate and interesting posters.

So here's my proposal:

The creation of a second health bar. This bar should be shorter than the main bar (maybe 4) and be used to count misdemeanor posts. A misdemeanor post would pretty much be any infraction that falls under "Put some effort into your communication" in the Code of Conduct, as well as advocating Ad Blocker.

Spoiler: CoC: Put Some Effort Into Your Communication

[link]http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/codeofconduct[/link]
Put Some Effort Into Your Communication
A well-made thread or a well-written comment engages its audience and facilitates discussion. We do ask that posters take just a little time to make their posts as readable as possible and keep their responses on topic. We also ask that you take a moment to check your spelling and grammar. Here are a couple things to avoid:

Low Content Posts
This could be anything from simply answering a question, posting LOL, "agreed," "this," +1, or even a joking quip. These forums are used for discussion and low content posts halt discussion. In order to participate in conversation one should present an explanation of the reasoning that informs your opinion. "I like pie" isn't an argument. The fact that you like pie is well and good, but why do you like that pie? This explanation offers others an opportunity to respond to your opinion and avoids forum spam.
Pictures, Links and Videos
These will all be considered low content posts if not accompanied by a well thought out opinion, debate or reasoning. Pics, links and videos should help to strengthen your stance or opinion, not the other way around.
Topicless Thread Creation
Posting a thread without any discussion value, or with a deliberately misleading title, will get you penalized and your thread locked. This includes creating a poll without an accompanying discussion or beginning a thread with an original post that does not sufficiently explain the topic at hand.
Posting in Old Threads
Posting in an inactive thread older than 30 days is not allowed. Please do not do so. If there is an old thread you would like to bring back, ask a moderator and they will judge whether that should be done. If so, they will post in the thread reopening it. All such moderator judgments are final.

Also moderators could have discretion to count a post that just barely crosses the "being a jerk" threshold as a misdemeanor.

Once the misdemeanor bar fills up, the user should receive a suspension of no more than 2-4 weeks. A misdemeanor post should not be counted on the main bar and the misdemeanor count should never result in a permaban. It is completely unfair that anybody should be banned for making a post that someone else considers to be "too little content." Once the user comes off of the ban, the bar should be reset to half and drain as the main bar does.

All more serious infractions should be counted on the main bar as normal.

This would not impede moderation in any way, and would simply give the mods more tools to do their job effectively. This would allow for the moderators to mete out punishment that fits the crime.

Also, I'm not sure what the moderation interface is like, but it would be nice if, when moderating someone, they had a quick way to append the reason for the moderation onto the post itself. This would ensure that it is clear to everyone the reason for the moderation, and allow it to serve as an example to others.

I feel that these changes would still allow for a system of moderation that encourages quality discussion, while also allowing for more nuanced punishment.

 

[Fappy]

You have eight opportunities to fuck up with the ability to appeal violations. You can also regain health over time.

I honestly don't have a clue how people still manage to get banned with this system. Now that the post length rule is basically gone you just have to avoid being a jerk eight times in a row to not get banned. Shouldn't be difficult to achieve.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Now that the post length rule is basically gone you just have to avoid being a jerk eight times in a row to not get banned. Shouldn't be difficult to achieve.

And even being a jerk is no guarantee of getting modded, unless you are very careless.

 

[VanQ]

Moderation isn't as bad as it used to be. That one thread on [redacted] that Jim said the moderators agreed to not ban people for mentioning or discussing the use or implementation of [redacted] where people were banned in mass anyway kinda led to less strict moderation. That was a PR disaster for this site that was reported all over the place.

And now that there aren't Anita and Femfreq threads literally every week, my health bar has slowly but surely regenerated to almost full health.

I wouldn't say that the moderation is "perfect" the way it is, but it's certainly "fine" the way it is if you ask me.

 

[IceForce]

Moderation isn't as bad as it used to be. That one thread on [redacted] that Jim said the moderators agreed to not ban people for mentioning or discussing the use or implementation of [redacted] where people were banned in mass anyway kinda led to less strict moderation. That was a PR disaster for this site that was reported all over the place.

Is that really what caused the less strict moderation? I agree with the general consensus in this thread so far, and say that the moderation has gotten noticeably less harsh lately.
Although that's a double edged sword, because while it means people aren't being banned for stupid reasons as often as they once were, it also means jerks can get away with being more assholeish to people.

 

[Drathnoxis]

It is completely unfair that anybody should be banned for making a post that someone else considers to be "too little content."

I'll let you in on a little secret. When someone here gets banned for low content, 99.99% of the time, they have 7 other infractions ALSO for low content.
If we kept giving out limitless punishments for low content, but never actually banned the person for it, what would be the point of that? Where do you draw the line?

There should be no line. If they continue to make low content posts they should continue to receive suspensions of 2-4 weeks. If they are that determined to make low content posts, I fail to see how 2 low content posts every 2-4 weeks is a serious detriment to the site. Handing out permabans for minor offenses like that is equivalent to someone getting 10 littering fines and then being thrown in jail for the rest of their life.

As I say, practically everyone who gets banned for low content has received a multitude of infractions for it in the past, and the infractions obviously have had absolutely no effect.

They may have many low content posts, but I'm willing to bet that, if they've been here for any length of time, their posts that contain content vastly outnumber their contentless ones. The occasional lazy post in hundreds or possibly thousands should not be a bannable offense.

Also, I'm not sure what the moderation interface is like, but it would be nice if, when moderating someone, they had a quick way to append the reason for the moderation onto the post itself. This would ensure that it is clear to everyone the reason for the moderation, and allow it to serve as an example to others.

That would require editing the reason into the post. And tampering with a post after it's received a punishment is not something we tend to do, for obvious reasons.

Yeah, I was proposing that a quick way for mods to add in a reason be added to the modding interface.

 

[VanQ]

Moderation isn't as bad as it used to be. That one thread on [redacted] that Jim said the moderators agreed to not ban people for mentioning or discussing the use or implementation of [redacted] where people were banned in mass anyway kinda led to less strict moderation. That was a PR disaster for this site that was reported all over the place.

Is that really what caused the less strict moderation? I agree with the general consensus in this thread so far, and say that the moderation has gotten noticeably less harsh lately.
Although that's a double edged sword, because while it means people aren't being banned for stupid reasons as often as they once were, it also means jerks can get away with being more assholeish to people.

I can't say for sure that it's directly correlated, but it was not long after that incident that I noticed the moderation was a whole lot less strict. I also recall it being around the same time as that that the low content post regulations were relaxed.

 

[IceForce]

I can't say for sure that it's directly correlated, but it was not long after that incident that I noticed the moderation was a whole lot less strict. I also recall it being around the same time as that that the low content post regulations were relaxed.

It would seem too much to be a coincidence.
At the time, I'd heard people were sending in official complaints, not just to The Escapist, but also to Defy Media the parent company.
And as you say, it was a huge PR disaster.

So yeah, it's too much to be a coincidence, I feel.

 

[Sleepy Sol]

I think the moderation is rather okay at the moment. There are still a small handful of rules that I would like to see go, but they're generally extremely minor inconveniences that don't really sour my opinion too much.

It really is not difficult to keep a clean record with the current system. Heck, I've kept one for years before moderation became more lax.

 

[Neverhoodian]

I think the current situation is just fine (or at least much better than it used to be). Eight infractions is plenty, especially with the regenerating health mechanic. Hell, a few more prominent users have even been un-banned in recent years. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that perhaps the rules have been relaxed a tad too much now. I've seen some instances of certain users acting like total jerks and getting away with it.

At the risk of sounding like a dick, if a user ends up getting permabanned after that many chances, then they probably weren't a huge loss.

 

[sky14kemea]

Honestly, that just sounds needlessly complicated and would probably make people even angrier, Mods included.

If people can't learn after 8 chances, then farewell and good luck to them.

 

[Xan Krieger]

Wanna know how lenient the mods are? I'm still here. That speaks volumes about how tolerant the mods are.

 

[Colour Scientist]

You have eight opportunities to fuck up with the ability to appeal violations. You can also regain health over time.

I honestly don't have a clue how people still manage to get banned with this system. Now that the post length rule is basically gone you just have to avoid being a jerk eight times in a row to not get banned. Shouldn't be difficult to achieve.

Yeah, it's really not that difficult to avoid mod wrath. Everyone can have a slip up here and there, users and mods, but if you wrack up eight infractions in a short space of time, taking into account the fact that your health bar goes down one every six months, you probably aren't paying attention to the rules of the site.

I've never even read the CoC in full and I know how to avoid mod wrath, it's mostly common sense.

Yeah, we've lost some fun users but if they wanted to stay, they probably shouldn't have broken the rules as often as they did.

 

[Jux]

I don't really understand the complaints about moderation here. If anything, I'd prefer to see the sites owners direct the mods to be stricter in moderation.

 

[laggyteabag]

Instead of having to implement a new warning system, I propose something else: Don't break the rules.

Under normal circumstances, unless you are jumping from thread to thread posting only one word, chances are, you will never be banned for it. You have 8 strikes on your forum health bar, so you have to screw up quite spectacularly to get banned in the first place, like post something very controversial or offensive. In my 4 or so years at the escapist, I think that I have only received one warning, and that one strike has long since been wiped off my health bar, once again giving me a clean record.

So the moral of the story is: Unless you quite majorly screw up and offend the entirety of the Escapist at once (which would also be quite amazing), or you actively want to be banned by causing problems, chances are, you will never be banned.

 

[Hoplon]

ahhh needless convolution of a system to make it "more fair" this is the place games go to die.

no system is perfect, it can't be, but it's less terrible than no moderation and does not need more complications.

 

[Teoes]

Poll is missing a "room for improvement" option. Moderation isn't perfect here but I wouldn't go as far to say there are problems.

I like how your proposals for making things more complicated will somehow not impede moderation, particularly when you admit to not knowing how the existing interface even works.

Do you know the reason we're not allowed to advocate adblocker here? It's because it interferes with the site's lifeblood - ad revenue. You're suggesting these misdemeanors cover low content posts, image/video posts, necroing old threads and creating pointless topics. Your end-game is to encourage quality discussion. Can you explain how any of these things encourage quality discussion? If I were to be allowed, say, to respond to this topic with just a "didnt read lol" gif, is that quality discussion?

Nope, sorry, I think the answer here is a simple don't break the rules. It's dead easy.

 

[DoPo]

Under normal circumstances, unless you are jumping from thread to thread posting only one word, chances are, you will never be banned for it.

And even if that happens, so if somebody went on a low-content-posting spree over a short period of time, I'm fairly sure the mods would give out one, or maybe two, warnings, instead of one for all of them and insta-perma-ban the said poster. At least that's what happens if somebody new joins in and mass necroes stuff by accident - they don't get hit for each of the necros.

 

[Barbas]

This has been causing the site to lose many, many passionate and interesting posters.

I've had the misfortune of speaking with some of the people you've named and, while it's a shame how long that list is, a lot of the people on it are making this site a considerably better place simply by not being here. Romanticize them all you want, but I'd be content never to hear from them again.

I do miss some of the people on that list, but they were all banned because of their own slip-ups. They lost their temper and that's the result. It's not hard to pick up on the rules if you've lurked for a few weeks or seen a few warnings given out. There's even quite a bit of leeway for people to be passive-aggressive, petty and vindictive, but it could sure be worse.

There are about 10-11 active moderators, so a considerable change like the one you're proposing is currently unlikely at best.