Poll: A Proposal for Better Moderation

[shintakie10]

The only time I'ver ever felt that moderation was too harsh was in response to the Jimquisition episode that shall not be named which, in all honesty, seemed more like a miscommunication problem more than anythin. Jim didn't outright say no one would be banned, but he inferred it would be a safe space to talk about it because there couldn't be much discussion otherwise. People got banned/suspended and shit got real bad real fast.

Other than that, meh? Low content post is about the only thing I see people get in trouble for a lot and that's not even enforced unless you aren't contributing to the conversation at all. The only thing I've ever been in trouble for I was able to successfully appeal.

 

[The Lunatic]

I think the biggest problem with the site's moderation is the lack of uniformity and subjectiveness.

We have users who get away with being passive aggressive to an extreme degree.

I've even had a user threaten to "Set the mods on me" yet not receive any warning for such things.

On the other hand, I've been warned for implying somebody didn't understand a post I made.

So, yeah, the moderation is pretty... Off, overall, but, I doubt this suggestion will really help with that.

 

[MysticSlayer]

I think if someone can't learn that they shouldn't make low-content posts after three warnings and three suspensions that together last for over a month, then they probably aren't going to learn their lesson. Yeah, it might not be too bad to have the same person coming in every 2-4 weeks to make a low content post, but imagine if everyone who ever got banned for it were doing that! That would be a nightmare.

With that said, moderation definitely seems more laid back now. I've seen a ton of posts get by that would have gotten a low-content warning a year ago. If anything, the mods should probably be a little more strict about certain things, such as the not-so-subtle ways people can get away with insulting other members without justification.

 

[Katherine Kerensky]

If you think it is currently harsh, you should be glad that I'm no longer a mod.
I'd ban the lot of you.

Joking aside, I think the system is fine as it is now. I've pretty much moved on to another forum/community, and with some of the users I've had to deal with there, both as a mod and as a normal user, I've missed the moderation from here. I wouldn't want to see more lenience, because then some bad apples could get away with more than they should.

Also, there's something satisfying about watching Topaz's Tetris avatar, especially when it knocks down three rows in one.

 

[Fox12]

Nope, love it how it is. If they became less stringent and assholes flooded the site then I'd leave. I like the culture how it is.

For the record, I have several warnings, and I deserve every one. I knew I'd get busted when I posted them.

 

[Katherine Kerensky]

Also, there's something satisfying about watching Topaz's Tetris avatar, especially when it knocks down three rows in one.

But it's the same every time!

So anyway, when are you rejoining the team again, Greyfox?

While it's true that the issues that lead me to step down have passed, meaning that I could resume my role without that particular bunch of problems, the community manager has changed since then. I don't even know who it is now, or if they'd accept me back.
I'm just a relic, and relics tend not to be much use
Seems my old trick is gone, though. Shame. I was about to hit you with Beiber Fever.
Because I'm a really nice person that way.

 

[Catrixa]

I feel like implementing a "It's ok you made that low-content post, here's a little slap on the wrist"-system wouldn't really improve anything. As plenty of users above me have mentioned, it's less of a "This person made a minor mistake! We must ban them!!" situation and more of a mod-preferences issue. Possibly even a weird-site-rules issue (see: offenses based on talking about certain subjects and software products. I guess it's specifically advocating these things, but it seems more effective to just never talk about them ever, even if the conversation really calls for it, which comes back to the whole "mod-preferences" bit). Honestly, I am of the opinion that if your opinion on a topic is literally the most vile thing I've ever heard, you should still have the right to express it, but I get that there's a huge grey bar between "expressing an opinion" and "attacking someone," and some moderations might not wind up with the correct answer (mods are people, not automatons).

Maybe it should be clearer where to go to dispute a permaban. I'm not sure how much discussion goes into perma-banning an extremely active (and well respected/loved) member of the community, but if you're posting quality things many times a day, maybe your punishment should be proportional to the amount of bad posts you make vs good posts. Someone with a 80% bad post rate probably needs a ban, but someone with a 2% bad post rate maybe needs just a decent suspension? I'm really not suggesting GuyWhoOnlyPostsFirst get a pass or something, just maybe more thought get put into people who provide a lot of discussion material, if it's not there already (once again, I have no clue how much talking is done between mods).

 

[Elfgore]

That's a lot of work for the mods. I got kinda confused just reading it. You have eight chances. Eight! Before the Escapist bans you. If three times is not enough to tell you that "lol" and "+1" are not acceptable responses, you are never going to learn. Same goes for being a jerk to others. This system is fine the way it is, some people are banned for reasons other than moderation corruption.

 

[Scarim Coral]

Honestly I feel that when you register to this site, you read a term and condition aka the Code of Conducts before you fully register therefore you only have yourself to blame for getting a warming and you don't know why.

Seriously it is not hard to get a warming if you understand the code of conduct unless you really are intended to act like a jerk or still compell to typed a incredibly short comment or still want to comment on a year old thread.

 

[Drathnoxis]

What you're asking for is for people to be given the ability to flagrantly break the rules, repeatedly, without any long-lasting repercussions.

To have long-lasting repercussions for breaking such a petty rule is absurd. I really feel littering is the best analogy here, since low content posts are basically the litter of the forums. Sure, the litterer needs to be punished, otherwise it would fill the streets, but I don't think that long-lasting repercussions is ever appropriate for a casual litterer. Maybe if they drove through the streets, shoveling garbage onto the ground, but not someone who occasionally tosses a wrapper down.

The other thing is that you're effectively asking the mods to do more work, since we'd have to keep handing out punishments to the same users over and over again forever, without ever being able to ban them.

This is true, and maybe there would have to be a limit somewhere for the sake of practicality, but I still think that infractions of some rules really should be treated with more leniency than others.

The occasional lazy post in hundreds or possibly thousands should not be a bannable offense.

It's not. That's why the amnesty system is in place.
All you have to do is not break the rules for 6 months at a time, each time, and you're guaranteed to never be banned.

Not to mention there are many many users who have tens of thousands of posts, and have no warnings whatsoever on their forum bars.

6 months is an awful long time to go without making a mistake, and a lot of users are able to do it. However, many of the more interesting posters are clearly unable and then all your left with is a bunch of bland upstanding citizens.

And as if the majority of the people who have tens of thousands of posts didn't do most of them in forum games. Half the rules of the site aren't enforced there, and the other half never need to be because I kind of doubt many people's blood runs hot because of a forum game.

 

[Drathnoxis]

Just an interesting stat, if anyone's interested.

many, many [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.404382-Lament-For-The-Fallen-Banned?page=1] passionate and interesting posters.

I went through the ban reasons on all 95 people on that list, and only 4 of them were banned for rules covered under "Put Some Effort Into Your Communication" (this includes low content).

4

out of 95


I'm sorry OP, but if you want to implement a system that will lead to noticeably or significantly fewer bans like the ones you've identified, the system you've described in this thread won't do that. It would hardly even make a dent in those numbers.

So are you saying that only 4 out of those people had any of their 8 infractions fall under "Put Some Effort Into Your Communication" or that only 4 were banned because a "Put Some Effort Into Your Communication" infraction was their final strike?

 

[OneCatch]

Nah - if anything I preferred it when the moderation was a bit more strict against low content and other vapidity. It's been relaxed following the adblock debacle and the horrors of the Gamergate megathread.

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.

If they are 'determined to make low content posts' then they shouldn't be here. It's rude and disrespectful to deliberately and repeatedly break the rules of a community you join. Not to mention lazy-as-fuck if it's low content of all things. Typing is not an onerous activity - anyone can manage two sentences.
As for the analogy, I'd argue it's more like a park warden deciding that he's had enough of you littering his park after no less than seven requests, and subsequently refuses you entry. Strikes me as eminently reasonable.

Generally, if I had to suggest changes, I'd suggest reducing the amount of time between the health meter regenerating to allow people to recoup good standing once lessons have been learned. But the actual CoC itself and the general structure is an extremely good balance.

I'd also like to see a 'reason for ban' notice of some kind, but honestly it's usually easy enough to work out from the ban post. Plus it would probably unnecessarily add to the mods' work.

 

[Teoes]

To have long-lasting repercussions for breaking such a petty rule is absurd. I really feel littering is the best analogy here, since low content posts are basically the litter of the forums. Sure, the litterer needs to be punished, otherwise it would fill the streets, but I don't think that long-lasting repercussions is ever appropriate for a casual litterer. Maybe if they drove through the streets, shoveling garbage onto the ground, but not someone who occasionally tosses a wrapper down.

I fucking hate people who litter. It really winds me up that someone would have such a lack of respect for the environment and their surroundings, not to mention how lazy they are to not be able to hold on to their rubbish until they can find a suitable receptacle. I would punish litterers more severely if I could.

Playing with your analogy, the litterer drops rubbish four times and is given some small punishment that stops them dropping litter for a couple of weeks. They then head back out.. and drop litter again. Nothing happens to actually get rid of the litter.

Do I want litterers around these forums? You're goddamned right I don't.

 

[Andy Shandy]

Oh no, we lost such great users as Scrumpmonkey and Ultratwinkie. However will we cope?

Seriously, the system is fine as is. If people haven't learned the rules after 8 infractions - in a relatively short space of time - they deserve their ban.

 

[EvilRoy]

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

Ah, in that case that's something the site admins / webmaster would have to look at.

A website I used to frequent had a thing very similar to how banned/warned posts are greyed or hidden here, but in the "user was banned for this post" or "user was warned for this post" it would say "user was banned under rule 8" or somesuch. I understand in the mod tools it was just checkboxes, where you hit the warn button and then you click checkboxes for which rules were broken.

That worked though because there was an extremely specific set of things that you could be warned or banned for on that forum - like zero room for personal judgement by the mod unless is was a warning for assholish behavior which necessarily required some kind of a call by a mod.

 

[Drathnoxis]

Poll is missing a "room for improvement" option.

Wouldn't that be option 2 or 3? "Kind of, but I think the idea could be improved. (Please explain)" For if you think that my idea would help but could be improved. Or "No, there are problems with moderation but this wouldn't solve them." for if you think moderation could be improved but my idea wouldn't help.

Maybe it should be clearer where to go to dispute a permaban. I'm not sure how much discussion goes into perma-banning an extremely active (and well respected/loved) member of the community, but if you're posting quality things many times a day, maybe your punishment should be proportional to the amount of bad posts you make vs good posts. Someone with a 80% bad post rate probably needs a ban, but someone with a 2% bad post rate maybe needs just a decent suspension? I'm really not suggesting GuyWhoOnlyPostsFirst get a pass or something, just maybe more thought get put into people who provide a lot of discussion material, if it's not there already (once again, I have no clue how much talking is done between mods).

This is kind of what I'd like to see. A system where the people who contribute a lot, but still slip up once in a while (obviously it would have to be once in quite a while or they wouldn't be around very long) could get maybe a suspension of whatever length than a permanent ban. Even a year long suspension would be better than a permanent ban (which in my opinion should only be reserved for the most extreme cases and bots).

But I can't really think of a way that such a system would work on a site of this size.

 

[Ieyke]

The primary problem with the moderation here is that the moderators are not competent in their ability to differentiate between criticism and insults/rudeness.
No mechanical system is going to solve that.

I come from a forum run by one of the most iron-fisted and highly respected moderation teams I've ever encountered on the internet. THEY are ruthless and strict but level-headed and fair.
They make The Escapist's moderators look like panicked children, who moderate out of terror of the monster under their bed - fighting shadows with stadium lighting.
I have no suggestion on how to fix that.


In fact, it's possible that The Escapist's "strikes" are part of the problem.
My home forum is all or nothing.
You fuck up, you get banned.
But on the flip side, that requires the mods to be responsible with their ability to ban people, and ONLY ban them if they actually deserve it.

*shrug*
Whatever.

 

[Teoes]

Poll is missing a "room for improvement" option.

Wouldn't that be option 2 or 3? "Kind of, but I think the idea could be improved. (Please explain)" For if you think that my idea would help but could be improved. Or "No, there are problems with moderation but this wouldn't solve them." for if you think moderation could be improved but my idea wouldn't help.

Well done, you clipped out the very next sentence of my post, which explained the bit you quoted. Here you go:

Moderation isn't perfect here but I wouldn't go as far to say there are problems.

Your poll has 3 options.
1) "Here's my idea" - I explained that I do not think this is a good idea.
2) "There's problems with moderation" - I explained that saying there's problems, is going a bit far.
3) "Moderation is perfect" - I explained I didn't think moderation here was perfect.

So again: it's not perfect, but I wouldn't go so far as to say there's problems. I just think there's room for improvement. No, I don't have any great ideas right now as to how it could be improved. I wouldn't even be bothered if it didn't improve; while not perfect, I'm easily happy enough with the system in place.

 

[Aerosteam]

Moderation is fine as it is. Not perfect, though nothing is, but it's A-OK in my books.

As with everyone saying you get 8 chances... you do know you can get a single infraction which counts for multiple health bar hits, right?