[DISCUSSION] Discussion About Discussions

[Yukonastan]

Neutraligon brought up a good point over in the sexuality moderation issues discussion thread, regarding a couple of things he sees as backwards or strange with the current rules regarding reports and discussions.

Arch then suggested that we create a discussion thread about discussion threads. Hence, that's what I've done.

Looking through Neutraligon's post, he brings up the following main points, which I'm only rewording here.

One, report threads may not be posted in besides the accused, the prosecutor, the mods, and direct witnesses. No one outside these four groups of people is allowed to join in the report, to talk about the specific report, to bring up observations, complaints, opinions, and possible courses of action for that specific report.

Two, discussion threads may not talk about specific reports, even if that report started the discussion in the first place.

In effect, this means that specific controversial moderator judgments don't get adequately discussed, simply due to there being no leeway in the rules, which causes people to suffer warnings to try and get their point across.

Now, he goes on to say that despite not being involved in the specifics of the report, the ruling and the outcome do directly or indirectly affect him. And a lot of us have noticed similar things. We're simply unable to add our feedback into specific decision chains that affect us, or complain about specific mod actions that affect us, or discuss the ruling that affects us in detail, despite us being uninvolved. And according to Gon, this is a reason why the community isn't happy with moderation.

Thoughts?

[Jeckland]

Discussionception....

In all seriousness, I don't see it as a problem.

[Neutraligon]

Neutraligon brought up a good point over in the sexuality moderation issues discussion thread, regarding a couple of things he sees as backwards or strange with the current rules regarding reports and discussions.

Arch then suggested that we create a discussion thread about discussion threads. Hence, that's what I've done.

Looking through Neutraligon's post, he brings up the following main points, which I'm only rewording here.

One, report threads may not be posted in besides the accused, the prosecutor, the mods, and direct witnesses. No one outside these four groups of people is allowed to join in the report, to talk about the specific report, to bring up observations, complaints, opinions, and possible courses of action for that specific report.

Two, discussion threads may not talk about specific reports, even if that report started the discussion in the first place.

In effect, this means that specific controversial moderator judgments don't get adequately discussed, simply due to there being no leeway in the rules, which causes people to suffer warnings to try and get their point across.

Now, he goes on to say that despite not being involved in the specifics of the report, the ruling and the outcome do directly or indirectly affect him. And a lot of us have noticed similar things. We're simply unable to add our feedback into specific decision chains that affect us, or complain about specific mod actions that affect us, or discuss the ruling that affects us in detail, despite us being uninvolved. And according to Gon, this is a reason why the community isn't happy with moderation.

Thoughts?

Thanks for starting this. My thought is that there are a couple of ways this can be dealt with, one is to open up a new type of thread for discussing controversial decisions on specific reports like the one about sexuality. The other is to open up discussion threads so that specific mod decisions can be discussed. I think leaving report threads as being open to only those four groups is a good idea, as it means the mods have a simpler time separating out the threads.

[Yukonastan]

Discussionception....

In all seriousness, I don't see it as a problem.

And usually it isn't. It's occasionally when an issue like the whole deal with a guy trolling and flamebaiting an other (pansexual) one, then getting a "knock it off", despite being known as a trolly player. Now, the problem is as mentioned, that we can either discuss issues we're involved in, or we can discuss the overall problem without going into specifics. And in the specific thread in which these points were brought up, we're trying to discuss a specific issue in as general terms as possible, to stick within the current rules.

And to be frank, right now it's hampering the discussion.

[Neutraligon]

Discussionception....

In all seriousness, I don't see it as a problem.

And usually it isn't. It's occasionally when an issue like the whole deal with a guy trolling and flamebaiting an other (pansexual) one, then getting a "knock it off", despite being known as a trolly player. Now, the problem is as mentioned, that we can either discuss issues we're involved in, or we can discuss the overall problem without going into specifics. And in the specific thread in which these points were brought up, we're trying to discuss a specific issue in as general terms as possible, to stick within the current rules.

And to be frank, right now it's hampering the discussion.

Indeed, most of the time mod decisions aren't controversial, at least not very controversial. Most of the time the decisions tend to affect only the players involved and do not have wider implications. Occasionally, however, there are cases where a ruling on an individual case does have wider implications, and as such the ruling on that particular case should be open to discussion.

[The Archregimancy]

I'll note that I've started an internal discussion in the Sekret Mod Forum called "discussion about discussion about discussion", which contains a direct link to the OP of the present thread.

Again, I won't promise a specific course of action, nor will I promise a rapid response to the issues raised in this thread; but I thought it worth briefly mentioning that we are at least taking note of those issues, and following the discussion here.

[Neutraligon]

I'll note that I've started an internal discussion in the Sekret Mod Forum called "discussion about discussion about discussion", which contains a direct link to the OP of the present thread.

Again, I won't promise a specific course of action, nor will I promise a rapid response to the issues raised in this thread; but I thought it worth briefly mentioning that we are at least taking note of those issues.

Thanks for the heads up Arch. I considering this would be a change to the structure of Moderation, I would be surprised if we did get a quick response.

[Reploid Productions]

The main reason for the strict rules about report threads is to discourage spammy "Me too!" or potentially erroneous comments from the peanut gallery that then make it that much more tedious for the mods to sift through a report for the actual relevant material in what may be at least a vaguely time-sensitive matter. In contrast, the actual directive we got from [v] about Discussions is that they're for discussing policies and moderation matters in more general, broader terms, but that they should not be allowed to devolve into "Dissatisfied Person/Group A hijacks Discussion B to bitch about Specific Case X." (Hence [v] also giving us permission to move so-called "bad faith" posts to the evidence locker that are attempting to do so/are just to snipe at the team/are utterly unproductive.) They are also not typically time-sensitive matters and can go on for much longer than a report thread (most of which are generally buried in a day or two,) so the greater volume of material in the thread isn't going to impede regular duties.

In the sexuality discussion, I probably should have been more clear in that regard, because it is one thing to bring up related cases as examples relevant to a discussion, but it's another entirely to try and use a discussion thread to appeal/complain/contest a specific case's ruling. The latter was what I was trying to stave off, not the former.

Hope that helps clarify somewhat.

[Neutraligon]

The main reason for the strict rules about report threads is to discourage spammy "Me too!" or potentially erroneous comments from the peanut gallery that then make it that much more tedious for the mods to sift through a report for the actual relevant material in what may be at least a vaguely time-sensitive matter. In contrast, the actual directive we got from [v] about Discussions is that they're for discussing policies and moderation matters in more general, broader terms, but that they should not be allowed to devolve into "Dissatisfied Person/Group A hijacks Discussion B to bitch about Specific Case X." (Hence [v] also giving us permission to move so-called "bad faith" posts to the evidence locker that are attempting to do so/are just to snipe at the team/are utterly unproductive.) They are also not typically time-sensitive matters and can go on for much longer than a report thread (most of which are generally buried in a day or two,) so the greater volume of material in the thread isn't going to impede regular duties.

In the sexuality discussion, I probably should have been more clear in that regard, because it is one thing to bring up related cases as examples relevant to a discussion, but it's another entirely to try and use a discussion thread to appeal/complain/contest a specific case's ruling. The latter was what I was trying to stave off, not the former.

Hope that helps clarify somewhat.

Reploid I understand what you are saying, but this has been an issue before. I agree that report threads should remain as they are due to their time sensitive nature. In the case of the sexuality discussion, the reason why the thread existed in the first place was because of how that specific ruling would have wider consequences. The ruling was the very reason why that thread was created in the first place. Thus by not allowing us to comment on that particular ruling, you are in a way preventing the discussion.

[The Archregimancy]

What I'd personally like to do is find a balance between the two following principles:

A) Recognising that our members will often need to use specific case studies - including ongoing controversial case studies - in discussion threads as evidence for why they disagree with aspects of moderation policy, and how they believe that moderation policy could usefully be reformed.

B) Avoiding discussion threads devolving solely into protests against ongoing controversial case studies.

I support attempts to make arguments along the following lines: "Moderation's recent ruling that accusing someone of eating pistachio ice cream is trolling shows why their entire approach to pistachio rulings is flawed; here's where I use that recent ruling to show why, and here are some suggestions for improving their approach to the issue."

I would have concerns about a discussion thread that was solely and exclusively about arguing that our recent ruling on pistachio ice cream was wrong, and where the only people contributing were known lovers of pistachios (mmmmm..... pistachios).

It's sometimes a fine line, it's not always an obvious one, and it's perhaps something we need to make clearer. And perhaps we (the mods) could usefully think about how we can better encourage constructive discussion on the one hand without giving the impression that we're trying to shut discussion down on the other. I do take on board that it looks like we sometimes give out conflicting signals here, and that this can lead to frustration.

[Ethel mermania]

I get that moderation doesn't want every decision debated to death, but every once in a while you do get a perfect example of a decsion pointt, and this particular case was it. It lined up perfectly with the overall issue.

So I would suggest to make it ok to discuss a case as a metaissue, but not as a peer review.

Ninja'ed. By arch. Dammit.

No pistashios for you.

[Yukonastan]

What I'd personally like to do is find a balance between the two following principles:

A) Recognising that our members will often need to use specific case studies - including ongoing controversial case studies - in discussion threads as evidence for why they disagree with aspects of moderation policy, and how they believe that moderation policy could usefully be reformed.

B) Avoiding discussion threads devolving solely into protests against ongoing controversial case studies.

I support attempts to make arguments along the following lines: "Moderation's recent ruling that accusing someone of eating pistachio ice cream is trolling shows why their entire approach to pistachio rulings is flawed; here's where I use that recent ruling to show why, and here are some suggestions for improving their approach to the issue."

I would have concerns about a discussion thread that was solely and exclusively about arguing that our recent ruling on pistachio ice cream was wrong, and where the only people contributing were known lovers of pistachios (mmmmm..... pistachios).

It's sometimes a fine line, it's not always an obvious one, and it's perhaps something we need to make clearer. And perhaps we (the mods) could usefully think about how we can better encourage constructive discussion on the one hand without giving the impression that we're trying to shut discussion down on the other. I do take on board that it looks like we sometimes give out conflicting signals here, and that this can lead to frustration.

And I get these principles of preventing the specific reported case from devolving into a mudslog, in which case we wouldn't get anything done at all, and I respect that.

But as stated, certain times a specific case needs discussion, and I get that it's pretty tough to not devolve in solely discussing that case in a discussion about that issue. However, in some controversial reports and rulings we may have to try, to avoid what's happening now. A small group of perhaps six players talking about a case that potentially affects many more people, who have no input. And when those many people come together, due to the rules, they can't discuss the specific case in any more than general terms.

Perhaps it'd be a good idea to allow moderator-guided discussion of issue x and ruling y when it's required, with the intent of reconsidering that specific ruling as opposed to the issue in general. Because in general, the issue may not be that controversial, but because players a, b, and c were involved, the ruling is controversial in that specific case.

Pistachio ice cream is trolling! Give some to all!

[NERVUN]

Personally, I wouldn't mind using previous rulings as examples (indeed there's been times when I'VE wanted to bring something up but knew I couldn't), but, yes, I don't want to get back into the notion that everyone can debate every ruling. I don't think mentioning past rulings should be illegal, but I would like to see it coupled with suggestions. I.e. "You guys got the whole pistashio ice cream ruling wrong! Everyone knows chocolate chip cookie dough is the best. From now on Mods should give preference to it."

I think if done that way, we can balance talking about larger issues where we might need to relook at how we're approaching things with keeping the line between who should be filing an appeal and who shouldn't be.

No pistashios for you.

Cruelty, thy name is Ethel mermania.

[Ethel mermania]

Personally, I wouldn't mind using previous rulings as examples (indeed there's been times when I'VE wanted to bring something up but knew I couldn't), but, yes, I don't want to get back into the notion that everyone can debate every ruling. I don't think mentioning past rulings should be illegal, but I would like to see it coupled with suggestions. I.e. "You guys got the whole pistashio ice cream ruling wrong! Everyone knows chocolate chip cookie dough is the best. From now on Mods should give preference to it."

I think if done that way, we can balance talking about larger issues where we might need to relook at how we're approaching things with keeping the line between who should be filing an appeal and who shouldn't be.

No pistashios for you.

Cruelty, thy name is Ethel mermania.

Been talking to the little mermanians again I see.

[Cornupication]

I think that this could become a very slippery slope that would slip into exactly what the moderators are saying they don't want to happen - people expecting to be able to discuss every ruling ever made. Which, I agree, should be considered quite heavily before implementing something.

It seems that discussion for certain rulings are gravely called for, but how would we put a process in place without massively increasing the work of the mods/admins, who are, we must not forget, are volunteers.

To try and bring it down to just the big, hotly debated topics, not "every ruling ever" I think a consensus of some kind could be shown to have reached, before it is valid for a discussion. Something *similar* to a poll, but I'm struggling to think of a method of how that would be reliably shown without breaking something/increasing workloads or amounts of topics in the moderation thread massively. A petition of some kind, perhaps? Then the mods would be able to see how popular certain discussion threads are, and allow them, while not allowing one man discussion appeals against their ban they received for blatant racism.

There would need to be a strict set of rules to adhere to about what type of discussion could be allowed, though again, that would probably be discussed after making a decision in the first place.

Apologies, by the way, I know my thought pattern is sometimes very jumbled, and might not read well. Have a treat for putting up with me *leaves pistachio ice cream for NERVUN and the others*

[Neutraligon]

Personally, I wouldn't mind using previous rulings as examples (indeed there's been times when I'VE wanted to bring something up but knew I couldn't), but, yes, I don't want to get back into the notion that everyone can debate every ruling. I don't think mentioning past rulings should be illegal, but I would like to see it coupled with suggestions. I.e. "You guys got the whole pistashio ice cream ruling wrong! Everyone knows chocolate chip cookie dough is the best. From now on Mods should give preference to it."

I think if done that way, we can balance talking about larger issues where we might need to relook at how we're approaching things with keeping the line between who should be filing an appeal and who shouldn't be.

No pistashios for you.

Cruelty, thy name is Ethel mermania.

We already have something called good faith posting, could that be extended to discussions that involve in-depth examples?

[NERVUN]

Personally, I wouldn't mind using previous rulings as examples (indeed there's been times when I'VE wanted to bring something up but knew I couldn't), but, yes, I don't want to get back into the notion that everyone can debate every ruling. I don't think mentioning past rulings should be illegal, but I would like to see it coupled with suggestions. I.e. "You guys got the whole pistashio ice cream ruling wrong! Everyone knows chocolate chip cookie dough is the best. From now on Mods should give preference to it."

I think if done that way, we can balance talking about larger issues where we might need to relook at how we're approaching things with keeping the line between who should be filing an appeal and who shouldn't be.


Cruelty, thy name is Ethel mermania.

We already have something called good faith posting, could that be extended to discussions that involve in-depth examples?

That's an idea...

Let me change tracks for a bit, in a perfect world, what would you like to see?

[Neutraligon]

We already have something called good faith posting, could that be extended to discussions that involve in-depth examples?

That's an idea...

Let me change tracks for a bit, in a perfect world, what would you like to see?

I will use the recent discussion thread as an example. That discussion thread was started based on one specific report, and people disagreeing strongly with the original outcome of that report. Because of the type of offense in that report, the ruling would have affected the tone of the website visa-vi the LGBT community, which was why there was such an outcry. When the discussion thread was started, mods kept saying not to discuss in depth that particular case, but since that case was the reason why the discussion thread existed in the first place, this limited the discussion significantly. I think had the mods had a looser policy in that particular discussion people would not have gotten so frustrated in trying to explain their issue with that particular ruling, and how they felt it would affect how they feel about this website, and whether they feel welcome here. I honestly think that simply doing the good faith posting would be sufficient in this case so that we can bring up specific cases to illustrate out points without creating an opening for every ruling having a massive discussion thread.

[Bears Armed]

Let me change tracks for a bit, in a perfect world, what would you like to see?

In a perfect world, wouldn't moderation be un-needed?
In a perfect world, would we even have the concept of 'nation states'?
[/philosophy]

^_^

[NERVUN]

That's an idea...

Let me change tracks for a bit, in a perfect world, what would you like to see?

I will use the recent discussion thread as an example. That discussion thread was started based on one specific report, and people disagreeing strongly with the original outcome of that report. Because of the type of offense in that report, the ruling would have affected the tone of the website visa-vi the LGBT community, which was why there was such an outcry. When the discussion thread was started, mods kept saying not to discuss in depth that particular case, but since that case was the reason why the discussion thread existed in the first place, this limited the discussion significantly. I think had the mods had a looser policy in that particular discussion people would not have gotten so frustrated in trying to explain their issue with that particular ruling, and how they felt it would affect how they feel about this website, and whether they feel welcome here. I honestly think that simply doing the good faith posting would be sufficient in this case so that we can bring up specific cases to illustrate out points without creating an opening for every ruling having a massive discussion thread.

Ok, I think I can see what you're getting at. In principle I think I agree. I'm a little leery about how to make sure it is understood that there's a difference between discussing a ruling and appealing it, but I think we're more or less on the same page. As Arch said, we're talking about this so we'll have to see what comes from it.

Let me change tracks for a bit, in a perfect world, what would you like to see?

In a perfect world, wouldn't moderation be un-needed?
In a perfect world, would we even have the concept of 'nation states'?
[/philosophy]

^_^

//Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to flame or DEAT for
And no regions too
Imagine all the players
Living life in peace...

You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And Moderation will be done...//

[Neutraligon]

I will use the recent discussion thread as an example. That discussion thread was started based on one specific report, and people disagreeing strongly with the original outcome of that report. Because of the type of offense in that report, the ruling would have affected the tone of the website visa-vi the LGBT community, which was why there was such an outcry. When the discussion thread was started, mods kept saying not to discuss in depth that particular case, but since that case was the reason why the discussion thread existed in the first place, this limited the discussion significantly. I think had the mods had a looser policy in that particular discussion people would not have gotten so frustrated in trying to explain their issue with that particular ruling, and how they felt it would affect how they feel about this website, and whether they feel welcome here. I honestly think that simply doing the good faith posting would be sufficient in this case so that we can bring up specific cases to illustrate out points without creating an opening for every ruling having a massive discussion thread.

Ok, I think I can see what you're getting at. In principle I think I agree. I'm a little leery about how to make sure it is understood that there's a difference between discussing a ruling and appealing it, but I think we're more or less on the same page. As Arch said, we're talking about this so we'll have to see what comes from it.

In a perfect world, wouldn't moderation be un-needed?
In a perfect world, would we even have the concept of 'nation states'?
[/philosophy]

^_^

//Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to flame or DEAT for
And no regions too
Imagine all the players
Living life in peace...

You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And Moderation will be done...//

Thanks Nervun. I agree this would need to be done carefully to prevent that type of issue, hence why I suggested good faith posting.

[Ethel mermania]

I will use the recent discussion thread as an example. That discussion thread was started based on one specific report, and people disagreeing strongly with the original outcome of that report. Because of the type of offense in that report, the ruling would have affected the tone of the website visa-vi the LGBT community, which was why there was such an outcry. When the discussion thread was started, mods kept saying not to discuss in depth that particular case, but since that case was the reason why the discussion thread existed in the first place, this limited the discussion significantly. I think had the mods had a looser policy in that particular discussion people would not have gotten so frustrated in trying to explain their issue with that particular ruling, and how they felt it would affect how they feel about this website, and whether they feel welcome here. I honestly think that simply doing the good faith posting would be sufficient in this case so that we can bring up specific cases to illustrate out points without creating an opening for every ruling having a massive discussion thread.

Ok, I think I can see what you're getting at. In principle I think I agree. I'm a little leery about how to make sure it is understood that there's a difference between discussing a ruling and appealing it, but I think we're more or less on the same page. As Arch said, we're talking about this so we'll have to see what comes from it.

In a perfect world, wouldn't moderation be un-needed?
In a perfect world, would we even have the concept of 'nation states'?
[/philosophy]

^_^

//Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to flame or DEAT for
And no regions too
Imagine all the players
Living life in peace...

You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And Moderation will be done...//

And so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the Nationstates dream.

I have a dream that one day the World assembly will be called the united nations and the security council will never have to issue another liberation

I have a dream that one day on the plain forums of nationstates Communists and Libertarians will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.

I have a dream that one day even the most ardent feminnazi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, hand in hand with a misogynist MRA , will be the catalyst by which the forums will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.

I have a dream that the four little genders will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their naughty bits but by the content of their character.

[Bubblekirby]

Color of their naughty bits? What

[Simplification]

Ok, I think I can see what you're getting at. In principle I think I agree. I'm a little leery about how to make sure it is understood that there's a difference between discussing a ruling and appealing it, but I think we're more or less on the same page. As Arch said, we're talking about this so we'll have to see what comes from it.


//Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to flame or DEAT for
And no regions too
Imagine all the players
Living life in peace...

You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And Moderation will be done...//

And so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the Nationstates dream.

I have a dream that one day the World assembly will be called the united nations and the security council will never have to issue another liberation

I have a dream that one day on the plain forums of nationstates Communists and Libertarians will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.

I have a dream that one day even the most ardent feminnazi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, hand in hand with a misogynist MRA , will be the catalyst by which the forums will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.

I have a dream that the four little genders will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their naughty bits but by the content of their character.

That was beautiful..

[Archeuland and Baughistan]

In short, there are both good and bad moderators.