Poll: A Proposal for Better Moderation

[Barbas]

(Snip).

I kind of like that they give people that chance. Odds are that if you're patient enough to wait it out for a whole year, you've probably come to change the way you interact with people. If not, boom - shot behind the chemical sheds.

I think it's good that the CoC also says the banned do not have their health bars regenerate over time, because it doesn't get hopes up for quick forgiveness. So you get more effectively reformed posters. Hopefully.

 

[Drathnoxis]

Out of that list of people I only miss seeing one of them around, but only a little. Hankman still got what he deserved for snapping like that.

Wait, what? Hankman snapped?? I always thought his final infraction was low content.

Snip.

It does not happen often but that is also an option. I can think of two names off the top of my head (Zeel who got perma-banned again for going right back to being a dick and another person who is currently active but I don't know if she wants people to know so I will leave her nameless) who were banned for something and allowed back into the forum a year or so down the road when they asked the staff nicely if they could return.

Yeah, I knew about those. It'd be nice if it was more formalized in the rules so that people were aware it was an option. That is, if it even is an option. I know Zeel had some unclear circumstances surrounding his original ban and I thought that was the reason he was allowed back. And there was a big uproar when that other poster was banned, so I thought that was why she was brought back. But is it really so that anybody who was banned could ask to be let back in after a year and have an actual chance?

 

[Fiz_The_Toaster]

Out of that list of people I only miss seeing one of them around, but only a little. Hankman still got what he deserved for snapping like that.

Wait, what? Hankman snapped?? I always thought his final infraction was low content.

I think that's what happened to him.

I would investigate deeper, but I keep getting an error message every time I go into his profile.

*shrugs*

Oh well.

 

[FirstNameLastName]

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.

There's definitely a problem with extreme passive aggressiveness and smugness on these forums. Not to mention being absurdly snarky, sarcastic, condescending and virtually every other synonym for, "being an unbelievable arsehole while tiptoeing around the rules."

However, I'm not sure this is something that can be moderated. The criteria of what is and isn't an insult is dubious at best, and the criteria of what is and isn't "passive aggressive" would be even more shaky.

 

[Grouchy Imp_v1legacy]

The forum rules are clearly explained and we have a 'health meter' that recovers over time. If people get banned it's usually their own damn fault - even if provoked into an argument by another nothing is forcing a given user to reply. At the end of the day these forums operate on the old adage " If you don't have anything constructive to say don't say anything at all" and if people fall foul of that then that is ultimately their own fault. The rules are there for everyone, for everyone to obey, and people that can't do the same as the rest of us shouldn't be given a special 'extra life' just for flaunting the rules.

 

[Drathnoxis]

Ok, Karutamaru is on that ban list of yours, I honestly can't take it seriously anymore. I really, truly can't. And Zeel. And Danyal. And J-e-f-f-e-r-s, Ultratwinkie, s69-5, Boudica...

Like... jesus man, that makes your 'Moderation has removed such passionate, interesting people from this site!' so out of context it hurts. Passionate and Interesting does not always make for people that are actually good people who can hold a conversation, you know.

The list isn't exclusive to people that shouldn't have been banned, it's more a list of notable posters. I certainly wouldn't say that Karutomaru didn't deserve to be banned, but I would say that he was more interesting than nearly everyone who posted in this thread. There were, however, a great many on that list that were entirely reasonable 99% of the time and simply slipped up a little too often for their health meter to drain.

 

[Scars Unseen]

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.

There's definitely a problem with extreme passive aggressiveness and smugness on these forums. Not to mention being absurdly snarky, sarcastic, condescending and virtually every other synonym for, "being an unbelievable arsehole while tiptoeing around the rules."

However, I'm not sure this is something that can be moderated. The criteria of what is and isn't an insult is dubious at best, and the criteria of what is and isn't "passive aggressive" would be even more shaky.

To be fair, this is the site that hosts Zero Punctuation. That tone of conversation came preset.

But yeah, I think moderation is fine. I've managed to get by with no warnings at all(well, a couple "low content" warnings that were kind of borderline, but nothing that actually dinged my meter), and I've made my fair share of grumpy 3AM reactionary posts. I just remember to always attack the argument, not the person making it.

Found a nice trick for avoiding moderator wrath though. Came in handy for the GG and social justice threads. I type out exactly what I want to say, fire, brimstone and all that. Then I review what I typed. Make sure that I'm getting across the meaning I'm going for. Check again for embarrassing spelling and grammar errors. Check one more time to make sure I'm not making any blatant conduct violations. Then I delete the post. I vent my frustration, get the words I wanted out of my head, influence the people I was posting to exactly as much as I would have by clicking "post," and avoid any chance of misunderstandings and infractions.

 

[Tsun Tzu]

Mods here actually seem to be pretty on point, for the most part.

I've seen some questionable calls, both against people I was less than pleased with and against people I 'agreed' with. I'm honestly surprised that some folks are still here, but that's another discussion entirely.

There have been some bans that seemed unnecessary...BUT I'm not seeing how many fuck-ups the people in question had that prompted the banning, so I'm automatically operating from a point of ignorance.

I do trust these folks to not actively display bias and to be objective, reasonable, and pleasant sorts.

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.

This right here is the major problem I have with moderation and the most frustrating thing about it is that it can't really be solved.

So long as people keep their behavior subtle by implying things or being 'overtly' passive aggressive toward other posters they (seem to as, again, I'm operating from a point of ignorance here) remain untouched. People who've learned how to circumvent moderation by employing tactics like that are just...ugh.


As for the OP's suggestion? Eh. I'm all for it. Minor infractions should have a separate system associated with them, if only to make permabanning for stupid stuff less of an occurrence.

I do miss some posters after all. :/

With that said, I'm not at all sure how people manage to reach the warning limit to begin with.

You have to consistently fuck up in order for that to happen and, frankly, it seems kind of difficult to do, unless you've given up and just go ham on everyone in your posts...or you're not particularly good at the aforementioned subtlety.

 

[tippy2k2]

It's interesting to see how many people in this thread are making the comment that the moderation is now too lax.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining or anything, I just find it ... interesting.

Because the moderation was made more lax because enough people suggested it and/or complained.

Bah! I'm not like these posers! I've been saying it's too lax since BEFORE it was lax

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

the system isn't perfect, but honestly it does feel a bit "too lax" as of late..

(including myself with that, I can be a bit too snarky sometimes.)

I do wish they had an either/or option for ban amnesty, where if you post VERY often, your amnesty period gets sped up for however long you go since your last suspension/warning (the people who always get banned for hitting 8 strikes are usually ones that post ALL THE TIME, which I feel their strikes should go away a bit faster than someone who merely lurks but comes back and posts something horrid every 5-6 months).

not saying it should be a ton faster, but someone who is actively contributing every day obviously is much more likely to rack up suspension/strikes against very quickly even though they aren't half as bad as a scumbag that does post awful and just mean shit every once in a while.

 

[Drathnoxis]

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.

On the contrary, 6 months goes by extremely quickly. GamerGate is coming up to 6 months old, and all the people who broke the rules at the beginning of that (and haven't broken the rules since) will start to see their infractions coming off soon.
And that's quite a few people.

And I do feel you have a fairly bizarre definition of "interesting" posters.

You might be right about that. I just feel that some conflict adds spice to the forums, and that watching people locked in heated argument makes for some of the most interesting threads. Also, it seems that quite a bit of the time the people who get banned are the ones that hold more unique viewpoints, and that over time the forum is becoming more distilled in the range of opinions of the users.

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.

Low content is hardly being enforced ANYWHERE. As has already been explained, it's nowhere near as strict as it once was.
Which is why I'm still puzzled that you're suggesting a system be implemented to solve a problem that's largely already been solved.

When I made the thread, I wasn't aware that low content wasn't being enforced. I still think that low content should be enforced to keep down the meaningless posts, just not be bannable. Thus my system would allow low content to be punished once again and keep up the standards for discussion. But, yeah, my system is largely pointless without low content being enforced.

Basically, I wanted a system where suspensions were used more, rather than outright bans. That would give people some actual repercussions for their actions, without permanently excluding them from the site. Perhaps a better solution would be to add a year long suspension before the last strike permaban to give a final warning with some impact.

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?

The latter.

Even if we went with the former, and considered someone who got a strike for low content, and then 7 other strikes for breaking other rules. Even if we 'extended' their health bar by 1, you really think they'll suddenly start following the rules?
If they've broken 7 other rules, what makes you think they'll stop at 7? They clearly never had any intention of following anything in the CoC, low content or anything else.

As I say, it's nice to think that the 8-strikes health bars are being used for breaking a variety of different rules, but 9-times-out-of-10 out of all the people who get banned, this simply is not the case. 9-times-out-of-10 if someone gets banned for low content, they have an entire moderation history full of low content infractions.
Same with insults. If someone gets banned for insulting other users, 9-times-out-of-10 they have an entire moderation history full of insults.

Which is why I'm of the (probably unpopular) opinion that 8 strikes is actually far too many. And a 4-warnings buffer is huuuge. It just leads to people 'spending' their warnings because those warnings have no real consequences or weight behind them.

Maybe a system with less warnings and more suspensions would be better. Something like:
1)Warning
2)Warning
3)3-day suspension
4)2-week suspension
5)2-week suspension
6)6-week suspension
7)6-month suspension
8)1-year suspension

 

[IceForce]

This isn't really related to what the OP is proposing, but can I just say that a really good way of improving the moderation would be to get an actual person to handle the appeals instead of Microsoft Outlook on auto-reply.

Every time I've tried using the appeals channel, I only get automated canned responses, and after a while ... no responses at all.
And the responses were not applicable or relevant to anything I wrote in my appeal. So it was clearly sent by a computer and not a real person.

So my suggestion would be to get a real person on the end of that channel. The Code of Conduct says you're supposed to be able to "plead your case". What a crock.

Has anyone actually managed to get hold of a real person on the end of that thing? I'm genuinely wondering.

 

[Marter]

This isn't really related to what the OP is proposing, but can I just say that a really good way of improving the moderation would be to get an actual person to handle the appeals instead of Microsoft Outlook on auto-reply.

Every time I've tried using the appeals channel, I only get automated canned responses, and after a while ... no responses at all.
And the responses were not applicable or relevant to anything I wrote in my appeal. So it was clearly sent by a computer and not a real person.

So my suggestion would be to get a real person on the end of that channel. The Code of Conduct says you're supposed to be able to "plead your case". What a crock.

Has anyone actually managed to get hold of a real person on the end of that thing? I'm genuinely wondering.

It's a real person. It's a member of the staff. I think right now our CM is handling it, but I'm not 100% on that. If you're getting an automated response it's because a real person is, um, sending it. That sounds weird. And if it's being ignored ... well, let's just say it's taken me over a month to get a response from staff members by PM before. As a moderator!

Yeah...

 

[CrystalShadow]

Hobestly, I don't quite understand what the issue is. I've had one infraction in the nearly 6 years I've been here, and I got that one removed almost immediately when I explained the situation. (it was an argument where the other person seemed to be going out of their way to annoy me)

People say the moderation here is strict, but also that it is less strict than it used to be.
I can attest to it being 'strict', if by that you mean more than 'non-existent'.

But seriously though, unless you simply don't listen to the mods, or are an absolute jerk to people most of the time, it's not difficult to avoid problems. It just isn't that hard...

 

[b3nn3tt]

Heh, well, what I find interesting is, go back a year or two, and a thread like this would be filled with people screaming from the heavens that the moderation is "too strict".

Nowadays though, other than the OP, I think you're hard-pressed to find anyone in this thread who is saying that now.

This is true, I remember those threads. I actually think moderation seems to have reached a reasonably happy middle-ground at the moment. I'm still yet to click on 'user received [warning/suspension/etc.] for this post' without being able to understand why they received that. The only area that I feel may have become too lax is the low content rule, but I can understand why that's the case.

As I understand it, people are now able to answer the question from the title, but don't necessarily need to expand on it? I think you gave the example of game of the year, where people are able to simply state their game of the year without it counting as low content. Personally, I think that should constitute low content, but as I said, I can understand the change, and I'm not bothered enough by it for it to upset me.

Other than that, I've not seen anything that makes me feel that there is a problem with moderation on the site, either too harsh or too lax.

 

[Zhukov]

I just browsed your list of "passionate and interesting posters."

Of those I recognize, I miss exactly one.

(Not counting people who requested bans or those who came back from the dead.)

Yeah, I'd say the current system is working just fine. And that's coming from someone who was once a single infraction away from a perma-ban.

You were?

You're so well-behaved though!

You're joking, right?

Please tell me you're joking.

I try to keep my inner scathing arsehole in check, but I am not always successful. The times when I was mod-wrath'd were often well deserved.

I've never personally seen you venture into rule-breaking territory.

You can be scathing and an arsehole but that's sometimes necessary on these forums.

Hehe. I am sorely tempted to prove my arseholish tendencies by trying to get you an infraction for calling me an arsehole just now.

Yeah, that would show you, you... you... craven harlot, you!

Has anyone actually managed to get hold of a real person on the end of that thing? I'm genuinely wondering.

Ohhh, ohh, I have!

To date I have appealed three infractions, two of them successfully.

I got a response each time from a real human. (Or a very convincing robot.) Although one response took a long time beecause it was in the middle of an Escapist Con. They were polite, if a bit terse. They don't identify themselves though, the messages are just signed "Moderator Team" or something.

 

[Bat Vader]

I disagree. People here have eight chances to change how they act when they receive a warning, probation, and/or a suspension. If someone can't or won't clean up their act after eight chances they don't deserve to be here.

Every new member is given a link to read the sites Code of Conduct.

 

[the_dramatica]

Moderation isn't as bad as it used to be.

Agreed, just about every gaming forum back in 2011 and before would ban people randomly who used swear words and made a passionate post. The escapist is actually a lot better than forums like neogaf and facepunch when it comes to bans as well. I personally think it could be better but with evasion being quite simple I can't complain.