Poll: Do you fear the ban hammer?

[evilneko]

I have been told quite frankly, one does not even have to violate the rules to incur mod wrath.

Wait, what? Who said this?

I was told this by a mod after going to their user group to inquire about a certain poster's suspension. If the mod who dealt the punishment had bothered to even read the post, they'd have noticed that it was a simple technical glitch. A markup mistake. All it would've taken was a quick edit to move some quote tags, and boom, a perfectly fine post.

Granted this was last year. But this is hardly the only incident that makes me wary of the moderation here, especially considering I live mostly in the R&P forum, where it seems some people are quite successful at using the mods as weapons in an argument, and I've seen blatantly trolling, offensive posts go unmodded. I even compiled a list of such posts by one particular poster (enough for a permban!) and reported each one. Not one was modded. It took far too long for that person to get the banhammer, meanwhile others accrued strikes for even the slightest perceived offense.

This is the only forum I participate in--or have participated in in the past*--where I have such concerns about the moderation.

*save one... where I am actually banned, and hadn't even violated any specific rules.

 

[King Kazma]

Though I walk through the valley of the shadow of mods, I will fear no hammer.

 

[Lovely Mixture]

I'm critical of the modding on these forums.

Threads are locked for arbitrary reasons at times.

I've been warned for "insulting a content provider." Which in my case was saying "I think ___ is kind of an idiot"

Many people get warned for their posts being too short, which makes others scramble to edit their post when they think they haven't written enough. I understand this is to help curve spam, but I think it's going too far at times.

 

[Galletea]

I guess it is like in my life outside the interwebs. I might swear a lot and make abrupt comments to somepeople, but I'd never say, jokingly call my mother a twat.
So here I wouldn't post the same low content posts that I might make elsewhere, simply because it is not the done thing here. I don't always agree with it, but then I don't always agree with things my mother thinks I shouldn't do either.

 

[Kushan101]

Yes.

Because I have been told quite frankly, one does not even have to violate the rules to incur mod wrath.

Pretty much this. I cant begin to count the number of times I've clicked a "user was suspended for this post" and I can't even begin to invent a reason for why they were suspended.

Don't get me too wrong - this place is a passive-aggressive paradise - but 80% of the time I really don't understand it.

*edit* look above at post 125. What rules did that break?

 

[Soviet Heavy]

I fear no man, but that... thing, it scares me.

 

[IceForce]

Weeeelllll, this thread went well didn't it. /sarcasm

Somedays that is exactly how it feels here. I can see threads where they use words like "Gay" as an insult or "******". Hell sometimes even "******" or "beaner". Yet, they don't get warned at all. Yet someone dares not write enough content in a single post: WARNING WARNING YOU ARE GOING TO BE BANNED IF YOU KEEP THAT UP.

The mods need to get their priorities straight some days.

I can only guess it's probably because short posts are the easiest posts to give warnings to. Much easier than finding an insult buried in a big post.

I was told this by a mod after going to their user group to inquire about a certain poster's suspension. If the mod who dealt the punishment had bothered to even read the post, they'd have noticed that it was a simple technical glitch. A markup mistake. All it would've taken was a quick edit to move some quote tags, and boom, a perfectly fine post.

Ouch. That's not fair at all.

You're right, there's nothing in the rules that says anything about getting the quote tags in the right place.

I live mostly in the R&P forum, where it seems some people are quite successful at using the mods as weapons in an argument

Yep, I've seen this too.

It happens all too often, where someone will deliberately try to rile-up as many other posters as they can, but without technically breaking any rules themselves.
Then when the other people get fed up and lose their cool, the report buttons get spammed on them.

 

[sky14kemea]

I was told this by a mod after going to their user group to inquire about a certain poster's suspension. If the mod who dealt the punishment had bothered to even read the post, they'd have noticed that it was a simple technical glitch. A markup mistake. All it would've taken was a quick edit to move some quote tags, and boom, a perfectly fine post.

Ouch. That's not fair at all.

You're right, there's nothing in the rules that says anything about getting the quote tags in the right place.

I agree, that isn't fair at all.
Usually when I come across a post that looks like it's just quoted and posted with no text, I go back to the previous quote and see if there's any text missing. If I do find a small paragraph in the wrong place, I correct it and then clear it from the queue.

Everyone's slipped up when quoting someone before, even me.

I live mostly in the R&P forum, where it seems some people are quite successful at using the mods as weapons in an argument

Yep, I've seen this too.

It happens all too often, where someone will deliberately try to rile-up as many other posters as they can, but without technically breaking any rules themselves.
Then when the other people get fed up and lose their cool, the report buttons get spammed on them.

Ugh, I hate that as well. The problem is it's really hard to pinpoint those people down with a solid enough case to ban them, without the appeal going through.
Not saying that I'm purposely hunting them, though. Just I've noticed people being clever with the way they word things.

 

[V da Mighty Taco]

Kinda yes and kinda no.

If you've ever seen any of my posts, you'll know I tend to be the type to post multi-paragraph essays on this forum and thus try to be as coherent, grammatically correct, and devoid of fallacies as possible - which is helped by the fact that I took a semester of Philosophy in high-school and learned about many of the logical fallacies. Because of this, I've yet to receive a single warning so far in my two years here.

However, I've never been one to trust human nature not to rear it's ugly head (after all, the mods are human and just as susceptible to power abuse as the rest of us). I've seen the mods ban people for silly things before, like with Vault101's infamous ban, and there are some pretty counter-discussion rules in place here like "no pro-piracy discussion ever".

Still, the mods here are probably the best I've seen by far, as is the community (though imho the community has gotten worse recently). Can't think of many other places where criticising a mod directly as well as the site's rules leads to a civil discussion on the matter rather than an autoban. The community also seems to have an unusually high amount of people who know what does and doesn't make a solid argument, though I admit that I stay away from R&P like the plague and thus don't know if things are different there. Either way, there's a good reason why this site is the only forum I visit regularly. Which reminds me...

*Snip*

My dear Madame of Arachnia, I've heard that it's forbidden to criticise the Escapist staff, such as Yahtzee or Andy Chalk. Is that actually true?

EDIT:

An important thing to remember is that there's been quite a high turnover of mods recently, even in just the last few months.
A LOT of mods have left, and a few new ones have been appointed (myself included).

A few people in this thread have raised examples from a couple or more years ago, of where they've been wrongly wrathed, or received rude replies to their appeals.
The moderation team today is a very different team to what it was back then.

This ring true as well. I didn't pay attention to how these things were back in my lurking-only days, but it seems like things were way worse moderation-wise back then. The mods today, at least the two that I've quoted in this post, I can personally confirm are surprisingly silly yet friendly, to the point that they've become part of the reason people come to these forums. It's always fun seeing Daystar and DVS go full silly, just for Spidermod to join in on the fun. XD

 

[sky14kemea]

My dear Madame of Arachnia, I've heard that it's forbidden to criticise the Escapist staff, such as Yahtzee or Andy Chalk. Is that actually true?

Pay close attention, Taco my boy. I shall repeat myself only once!

Criticism is allowed, as long as it's constructive. Saying how you think they could've done something better, and explaining it is welcome! However, calling them incompetent or saying they're "biased" are against the rules, as this does not help us improve our content at all. Also it hurts their feelings a bit, which isn't nice. =[

 

[V da Mighty Taco]

My dear Madame of Arachnia, I've heard that it's forbidden to criticise the Escapist staff, such as Yahtzee or Andy Chalk. Is that actually true?

Pay close attention, Taco my boy. I shall repeat myself only once!

Criticism is allowed, as long as it's constructive. Saying how you think they could've done something better, and explaining it is welcome! However, calling them incompetent or saying they're "biased" are against the rules, as this does not help us improve our content at all. Also it hurts their feelings a bit, which isn't nice. =[

I must say Lady Arachnia, I get things like "incompetent" which are basically no more than insults. However, "biased" is a legitimate criticism, especially if it's explained just how said bias exists (not just leaving it at "you're biased" and nothing else). I'm all for keeping it constructive, but the notion that certain errors that one can make (such as bias and other human-nature related things) are off the table entirely regardless of explanation doesn't seem justified or encouraging discussion imo.

As for their feelings, criticism by it's very nature is prone to upsetting people (especially those criticized) and what one finds offensive is entirely subjective. Such a thing alone cannot be used as a valid measure of judgement on the merits of one's criticism.

 

[PBMcNair]

Somedays that is exactly how it feels here. I can see threads where they use words like "Gay" as an insult or "******". Hell sometimes even "******" or "beaner". Yet, they don't get warned at all. Yet someone dares not write enough content in a single post: WARNING WARNING YOU ARE GOING TO BE BANNED IF YOU KEEP THAT UP.

The mods need to get their priorities straight some days.

I can only guess it's probably because short posts are the easiest posts to give warnings to. Much easier than finding an insult buried in a big post.

Its probably due to the way reporting works. More reports means it goes higher up the mod queue. Low content just has a greater likelihood of getting reports, because its more obvious. For example: A "This" post is definitely low content, and will get some reports, but a post that contains insults will only be reported based on each viewers interpretation of the post.


As for my actual response to the thread, I like the Mods here and don't fear the banhammer.
Clean health bar + plenty of lurking = No Worries.

 

[TheYellowCellPhone]

I'm not nearly as invested in these forums as much as I was a few years ago. If I wake up tomorrow and my account has been banned, without appeal, I'd feel bad for a bit, then just move on. There are other forums out there, but I like the Escapist's the most. So far.

 

[Basement Cat]

Recently, we've had thread after thread after thread, complaining about the moderation here and/or insulting the mods.
I'm suggesting that these people who are unhappy with how this site is moderated are simply the vocal minority.

Because if they're NOT the vocal minority, and it so happens that the MAJORITY of users here are unhappy with the moderation, then that means the moderation has failed this community, and needs a complete overhaul.

Note: I put the words in Bold.

One Topic: We always have threads complaining about Moderation. But the number of threads don't necessarily represent the feelings of the Escapist Community as a whole.

Witness:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.402969-Poll-You-have-a-clean-record-Excellent-job-citizen?page=1

This Poll/Thread I made a few months ago demonstrates that those who complain about the Moderation here are definitely in the minority.

[small]Thank goodness.[/small]

^_^

 

[IceForce]

those who complain about the Moderation here are definitely in the minority.

Then I was right in my vocal minority assumption.

As an aside: It's quite ironic how someone got banned in that thread (page 2).

 

[Wickatricka]

Yes I have 3 warnings for low content posts. Most of them were kinda unjust in my opinion but I try to post in different forums a lot so yeah.

 

[Basement Cat]

those who complain about the Moderation here are definitely in the minority.

Then I was right in my vocal minority assumption.

As an aside: It's quite ironic how someone got banned in that thread (page 2).

I beg your pardon. I thought that your post was something of a double entendre. I've edited it so as to not reflect poorly upon you.

As for [user]doggie015[/user] getting banned in that thread...yep, it seems to happen on a regular basis in threads like ours. Someone on the edge of a Banning (mine) or suspension (yours--page 2, I think?) gives sway to their emotions and...

*sighs*

Pax, IceForce. The Warnings/Suspension in this thread weren't your fault. I recognize that you weren't baiting. The difference is readily discernible.

 

[Daemonate]

My dear Madame of Arachnia, I've heard that it's forbidden to criticise the Escapist staff, such as Yahtzee or Andy Chalk. Is that actually true?

Pay close attention, Taco my boy. I shall repeat myself only once!

Criticism is allowed, as long as it's constructive. Saying how you think they could've done something better, and explaining it is welcome! However, calling them incompetent or saying they're "biased" are against the rules, as this does not help us improve our content at all. Also it hurts their feelings a bit, which isn't nice. =[

But that's bullshit, isn't it? My post in this thread earned me a suspension for 'insulting' the mods, while providing constructive feedback on how it could be better:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/18.822742.19904240

Looking over that post, my insult was I called the mods 'quacks'. Harsh stuff, I know, but I feel strongly about this! Seriously?

What I did use bad language about is describing the actual quality of the moderation; the quality of the mods' work. Which I called shit, trash and other things. Because it is. That's not an insult, it's harsh criticism of someone's output, included was detailed explanation on what was wrong and how to improve it.

Basically, my suspension proved my point *entirely*, and I feel extremely vindicated. There is a place between the realms of cesspool Battle Net and autocratic police state Escapist Forums. (PS. it's called Teamliquid).

 

[sky14kemea]

But that's bullshit, isn't it? My post in this thread earned me a suspension for 'insulting' the mods, while providing constructive feedback on how it could be better:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/18.822742.19904240

Looking over that post, my insult was I called the mods 'quacks'. Harsh stuff, I know, but I feel strongly about this! Seriously?

What I did use bad language about is describing the actual quality of the moderation; the quality of the mods' work. Which I called shit, trash and other things. Because it is. That's not an insult, it's harsh criticism of someone's output, included was detailed explanation on what was wrong and how to improve it.

Basically, my suspension proved my point *entirely*, and I feel extremely vindicated. There is a place between the realms of cesspool Battle Net and autocratic police state Escapist Forums. (PS. it's called Teamliquid).

You got a suspension because your health bar was already high from previous sanctions.

You pretty much insulted the Mods, the way they police the site, and the site itself. Just because one forum runs things differently than us doesn't mean all forums should adhere to that particular ruleset.

Each forum has different needs, and that means they'll have different rules. If you can't follow the rules here then just stay at your other forum?