Discussion: Have the mods gone far enough?

[Katganistan]

I'm not sure what'd be so difficult about implementing something along the lines of, "Nations under two weeks old cannot post threads". Restricting their ability to post, to my mind, would solve nothing. Obviously, the exact length is unimportant at this "float the idea" stage.

I don't see any point to allowing people on the site and saying, "Oh, sorry, you can't post for two weeks." That would have the effect of driving off new players. No such restrictions were placed on anyone in this thread.

This may just be my perception, but it seems like a lot of these suggestions (bias for older players, restriction on newbs) are geared toward making current posters the elite and new posters an underclass, and that's just not equitable.

[Twilight Imperium]

I'm not sure what'd be so difficult about implementing something along the lines of, "Nations under two weeks old cannot post threads". Restricting their ability to post, to my mind, would solve nothing. Obviously, the exact length is unimportant at this "float the idea" stage.

I don't see any point to allowing people on the site and saying, "Oh, sorry, you can't post for two weeks." That would have the effect of driving off new players. No such restrictions were placed on anyone in this thread.

This may just be my perception, but it seems like a lot of these suggestions (bias for older players, restriction on newbs) are geared toward making current posters the elite and new posters an underclass, and that's just not equitable.

Not "can't post", just can't start new threads. It'd give people a better idea of what good topics are and where the boundaries lay. It wouldn't solve the issues, but I bet it'd help. "lurk moar", as they say in some corners of the 'Net.

[Shaggai]

School admins could care less, in fact, they would probably publicly diss the site because it isn't run by them.

You would be quite surprised then, to know that Nationstates is in use in several schools, and that there have been plenty of times in the past where we have had great success in communicating with the schools where a troublemaker was coming from. (Probably the most infamous being the porn/shock image spammer that was tracked down to a Catholic high school, where the student was reamed a new one by the school and his parents, and barred access to any of the internet-capable computers unless he was under adult supervision.)

Obviously, some schools are going to be more technologically capable than others, but most of them have some manner of terms of service for using their computers. The odds are usually pretty good that someone doing something enough to get the entire school banned here is probably also violating those school rules, which is something that the school is a bit more likely to act on.

As for opinions and trolling, that is and forever will be the eternal balancing act we're somehow never going to get right, at least not to everyone's satisfaction. If we crack down, we're too harsh. If we ease up, we're not harsh enough. We cannot outline a complete legalistic code to provide a concrete framework for every single possible instance (because we're not robots, and more importantly, neither are the players!,) but "Don't be a dick." isn't concrete enough. We outline stuff at length in the OSRS, people complain it's too long to read; we shorten and simplify the OSRS, people complain it's too vague. That's part of why we have such an extensive appeal system, to try and compensate for the fact that no two cases are going to be exactly alike or viewed the same way by different mods.

Another thing to consider in enforcement shifts is that the tools have changed over time. Way back in yon early days, we had what was basically a "two strikes and you're DEAT" setup, primarily due to limited manpower compared to now, and vastly more limited tools. When all you had was a delete button, that was how you solved everything. Over time, the tools have broadened in scope, offering a wider array of enforcement options that have enabled a gentler (and arguably fairer) level of enforcement that can be better tailored to the specific nature of the offense. Does it sometimes mean an honest troll slips by longer than anybody would prefer now and then? Undoubtedly. But that troll is still going to eventually get nailed, and it also means that clumsy newcomers, people with non-majority opinions, folks having a bad day now and again, and other basically innocent folks have a chance to shape up before they get cut down. Under the older, harsher systems, we probably lost a large number of people who might have become contributing members of the community save for a rough start that resulted in deletions.

I can't say I speak for the team, but I would rather take longer (to better establish a pattern) to nuke a questionable case troll who is, at worst, really bloody irritating, than to start laying about me wildly with the banhammer whenever things get the least bit heated. In a forum as politically skewed as this one, a dissenting opinion (classic case: conservative users in a heavily left-leaning forum) is going to stir things up; but merely having a controversial opinion does not a troll make. The difference between controversial opinion and troll is an insanely blurry one that takes time to determine; not all trolls are going to march in with a conveniently blatant screed about "I'mma Nazi, lawl, kill teh Jews!" In practice, the more radical an opinion is, the harder it is to argue without running foul of the rules, but there are plenty of perfectly valid and non-radical dissenting opinions out there. So long as we allow those opinions to come into contact, there are going to be arguments and potentially baseless accusations of trolling. The only absolute solution would be to simply bar contentious topics (such as politics or religion,) which is something that we're never going to do, because there is no way in hell that would fly with [v] or with Max.

So what would be a desirable way to land harder on things, while still maintaining the flexibility necessary? Do away with slap-on-the-wrist unofficial warnings and cautions in favor of always going for *** the ominous red text? *** Default to 1-day bans on first offenses/greater use of short-term bans lower on the punishment ladder? These are the sorts of things that will give us helpful feedback. For instance, I would be okay skipping the unofficial cautions in favor of going straight to the official warning; unofficials largely serve the purpose of simply building up a picture of the user's habits, but the redtext could serve in that role as well. Heck, I'd even be down with more liberal use of short term 1-day bans, though I imagine people would still be unhappy whenever a bad day or flash of temper lands them on the receiving end of one.

I think that simply handing out more warnings, official or unofficial, would be good. Not in the sense that you should use warnings instead of bans, but instead use them for some of the not-quite-actionable edge cases. Just as a reminder that they're close to the edge, and they should take some care.

Edit: To make a more robust proposal, I think that unofficial warnings should be used for borderline cases, and official warnings for all actionable things that don't merit a ban.

[Tsaraine]

I've been on forums before where you can't make a thread unless your post count is X or higher - actually, I think Jolt might have implemented that back in the day, for a bit, unless I remember wrong. So the technology exists to implement it. But it is the most irritating thing in the universe and does nothing but drive new members to spam up existing threads, and I am wholly opposed to it. It's also highly neophobic, openly hostile to new members, and really sucks if the reason you're trying to post is because you're suffering a bug that you want to report.

I won't say "never going to happen", because never is a long time, but "absolutely shouldn't happen", and I don't think Max or [violet] has it in the cards, or would be likely to countenance such a scheme.

[Imperializt Russia]

I don't see any point to allowing people on the site and saying, "Oh, sorry, you can't post for two weeks." That would have the effect of driving off new players. No such restrictions were placed on anyone in this thread.

This may just be my perception, but it seems like a lot of these suggestions (bias for older players, restriction on newbs) are geared toward making current posters the elite and new posters an underclass, and that's just not equitable.

Not "can't post", just can't start new threads. It'd give people a better idea of what good topics are and where the boundaries lay. It wouldn't solve the issues, but I bet it'd help. "lurk moar", as they say in some corners of the 'Net.

Lurk Moar works far better as simple advice than a hard and fast rule.

People aren't going to put up with it.
Don't tell me "but those who stay will be better posters". You wouldn't have stayed if you'd had to put up with it. You'd have left in about five minutes.

[Twilight Imperium]

Lurk Moar works far better as simple advice than a hard and fast rule.

People aren't going to put up with it.
Don't tell me "but those who stay will be better posters". You wouldn't have stayed if you'd had to put up with it. You'd have left in about five minutes.

I probably would have, actually. But, point taken.

EDIT: that's would have put up with it, not would have left.

[Bunkeranlage]

Not "can't post", just can't start new threads. It'd give people a better idea of what good topics are and where the boundaries lay. It wouldn't solve the issues, but I bet it'd help. "lurk moar", as they say in some corners of the 'Net.

Lurk Moar works far better as simple advice than a hard and fast rule.

People aren't going to put up with it.
Don't tell me "but those who stay will be better posters". You wouldn't have stayed if you'd had to put up with it. You'd have left in about five minutes.

And also, while kind of rare, haven't there been new posters who have started excellent threads in their early days, just as there have been old posters who keep getting their threads locked?

[Katganistan]

Lurk Moar works far better as simple advice than a hard and fast rule.

People aren't going to put up with it.
Don't tell me "but those who stay will be better posters". You wouldn't have stayed if you'd had to put up with it. You'd have left in about five minutes.

And also, while kind of rare, haven't there been new posters who have started excellent threads in their early days, just as there have been old posters who keep getting their threads locked?

There have.

[Forsher]

I'm not sure what'd be so difficult about implementing something along the lines of, "Nations under two weeks old cannot post threads". Restricting their ability to post, to my mind, would solve nothing. Obviously, the exact length is unimportant at this "float the idea" stage.

I don't see any point to allowing people on the site and saying, "Oh, sorry, you can't post for two weeks." That would have the effect of driving off new players. No such restrictions were placed on anyone in this thread.

This may just be my perception, but it seems like a lot of these suggestions (bias for older players, restriction on newbs) are geared toward making current posters the elite and new posters an underclass, and that's just not equitable.

Well, it would be like that were that what was being proposed. But it's not, so it's not.

I've been on forums before where you can't make a thread unless your post count is X or higher - actually, I think Jolt might have implemented that back in the day, for a bit, unless I remember wrong. So the technology exists to implement it. But it is the most irritating thing in the universe and does nothing but drive new members to spam up existing threads, and I am wholly opposed to it. It's also highly neophobic, openly hostile to new members, and really sucks if the reason you're trying to post is because you're suffering a bug that you want to report.

I won't say "never going to happen", because never is a long time, but "absolutely shouldn't happen", and I don't think Max or [violet] has it in the cards, or would be likely to countenance such a scheme.

Most new posters have no interest in making new threads. The reason why I suggest it is because I think the only people who would be affected are spammers and troll puppets. You might get the occasional person who wants to say something really big but for the most part new posters want to get a feel of what the forum's like before doing something like starting a conversation. Two weeks may be too long, of course, but I said, right there, that the time itself is not some rigid aspect of the idea.

If a time length isn't possible then don't even bother. If you set, say, a 100 post limit I am inclined to agree that would lead to spam as players tried to get to the 100 posts. Whatever number one cared to take I think that would happen. However, it wouldn't with a time limit, be it five days, a week, two weeks, forever.

Reporting bugs is a little different and I wouldn't be surprised if it were possible to make technical and/or moderation exceptions... in fact, moderation is different already (it has the "since you started writing, these people have posted" feature).

Lurk Moar works far better as simple advice than a hard and fast rule.

People aren't going to put up with it.
Don't tell me "but those who stay will be better posters". You wouldn't have stayed if you'd had to put up with it. You'd have left in about five minutes.

I would not have noticed a waiting period before posting new threads. I am inclined to say that that is the case for most people. I am not, in fact, sure that I would've noticed a two week posting waiting period as it was a while before I paid any attention to the forum. However, your reasoning is exactly why I would oppose a waiting period for all posting full stop and it is why I haven't done that (and no-one until Kat did had even mentioned it either).

Lurk Moar works far better as simple advice than a hard and fast rule.

People aren't going to put up with it.
Don't tell me "but those who stay will be better posters". You wouldn't have stayed if you'd had to put up with it. You'd have left in about five minutes.

And also, while kind of rare, haven't there been new posters who have started excellent threads in their early days, just as there have been old posters who keep getting their threads locked?

Depends how early. Some may have been returning past members, which is another group that such a rule would be likely to actually affect in practice even with a short time of, say, five days. To that I say, so be it... nothing's perfect.

[Imperializt Russia]

Well, it took me all of three days to make my first forum post on my main account so I guess I can't say either way if I'd stayed or left.
But it's worth pointing out I arrived for the game originally, and had been a member of a different forum for the best part of two years previously. So I'd almost have certainly waited if I'd found I couldn't post threads.

It took me two weeks to post my first thread, asking about issues. Issues and shitposting were my first authored threads with my first "interesting" thread being posted about six weeks after I joined the site, which was a repost from said aforementioned other forum anyway.
search.php?keywords=&terms=all&author=samozaryadnyastan&sc=1&sf=titleonly&sr=topics&sk=t&sd=a&st=0&ch=-1&t=0&submit=Search
God I was annoying when I was 17.

[The Seleucids (Ancient)]

Sure i disagree once every while with a mod, though most of the time i just leave it and continue my buisness.
Aside from that they generally do a great job over here.

[NERVUN]

While I am being somewhat tongue in cheek, I'm also seriously noting be careful what you wish for. Us going RAR! is great until we start going RAR on you, then it becomes Mod abuse and jackboots.

I feel like I'm a fairly reasonable person. I know I have disagreed with previous and current moderation policies, and while sometimes the issue can be frustrating, I don't think I've treated or accused the mods as not being interested in a good forum community.

Sorry, wasn't claiming you did. My point is more, what Reppy said later, it's a balencing act and for every call we get to get mean, we get blow-back later that we were TOO mean.

And, no directed at YOU personally, but based on my experience, it really depends on whose ox is being gored at the time.

Couldn't really comment without seeing an example,

Let's look at an example (I would like to caution you that it's 1am EST for me and I've only taken a few minutes to cobble this together. This is just the roughest of ideas of what I'm thinking of):

Trolling is defined as posts that are made with the aim of angering people. (like 'ALL JEWS ARE [insert vile comment here]' for example). Someone disagreeing with you does not equate to trolling. Intent is incredibly important and will be judged by the moderators to the best of their abilities. Honest belief does not excuse trolling. Disagreements are expected and conducting yourself in a civil manner is ideal. Trollbaiting is the action of making posts that attract trolls. A prime example of trollbaiting would be gloating over the results of an election.

I look at this rule and I see two separate problems under the same rule so perhaps in the OSRS or in a separate appendix we include the following:

Intent to anger- A player who displays the following behaviors or commits the following actions can be said to be posting with the express purpose of angering other posters:
-consistently takes an opposing view in forum threads regardless of consistency with ideology or the facts presented in each thread
-consistently breaks from a thread's topic to make post about a pet ideology or favored subject
-consistently acts in a derogatory, impolite, or otherwise uncivil manner with posters who contest the original poster's statements
etc. (as necessary)

Harmful opinion- a player who posts behaves in the following way is said to be trolling regardless of the sincerity of their beliefs:
-wishing violence on a group or subset of people
-declaring a group or subset of people to be inherently unequal or inferior to the rest of the population
-Altering the names of political parties or ideologies so as to make those names insulting to their users
etc. (also as necessary)

Hmm... I can see this being helpful as commentary. I'm not sure if you've wandered over to the SC section, but Sedge has been keeping a compendium of rulings for the SC that expand and explain the Security Council rules, but do not modify the SC rules. The rules are still the same 4 simple ones, but his commentaries help players navigate and point to helpful rulings about things. The problem I have with making such commentary the actual rules would be the idea that trolling is THUS, the problem being that we have people who would argue that they didn't do THUS and THUS wasn't trolling.

but I do caution about making the rules too restrictive. What we've found is that when we go TOO detailed most of the playerbase won't read them and thems that do, then tend to attempt to be annoying JUST within the line and when called, yell that we're being unfair.

This isn't to say your suggestion doesn't have merit, but it is a consideration to be aware of.

To the former I will say:
This website isn't open to children. For the growing teenagers and adults here, they need to realize that the places and communities they live and will live in all have rules. If they elect not to read the rules, then they have only themselves to blame when they run afoul of those rules without realizing it.

I think there's a balance. There's a difference between someone who blows off the rules and a rules set so detailed and thick that you need professional help to navigate. Ignorance of the rules has never been an excuse, but if we start turning out something akin to the US tax code, no one will read them, which defeats the point of having the rules.

For the latter: Trolls always try to dance on the line, it's what they do. Right now we have a less well defined line and I don't think it's helping. I think if we push the line towards more strict we can get more trolls and force the less obvious ones to behave in a more acceptable manner. The whole purpose of our rule system is to make a good community, if trolls have to behave in a way that's only somewhat annoying instead of outright antagonistic, then I think we'll be better off.

Sorry, I worded that wrong, I meant to say with a hard and fast line for trolling we end up with people who will argue that they were not in fact trolling because according to the rules, trolling is ONLY All X is Y.

edit: and let me add onto the example above, if you say that the above is to strict or not strict enough, that's why I proposed a public thread or private suggestion box and occasionally empaneled rules committee. The forum can give comments about how specific behaviors should/shouldn't be against the rules and the mods can take that and everything else they have into consideration and decide whether a rules modification is necessary.

That's what the discussion threads are for. Seriously, it's to provide you guys with a voice in Moderation, to bring up problems, and suggestions to fix them, and also allow us to respond as ourselves instead of as a Mod team.

second edit: Now that I think about it, if your complaint is that nobody would read the rules, they wouldn't necessarily have too. The OSRS says posting with the intent to anger people isn't allowed and adds that some opinions are trolling still count even if they're sincere. So people who read that rule will still understand that they shouldn't post with the purpose of angering people. The further breakdown of the rules just makes it so that enforcement policy is part of forum record. It also gives us a chance to discuss the finer points of what is/ isn't trolling without having to rehash old mod decisions.

It follows in the same vein of current criminal law. I don't have to read or know the specifics of the definition or elements of murder link to get the general gist of what's going on.

Well, like I said, I think the idea of adding in commentary that expands, but does not modify, would be a good idea. People who would like to look at it, can. Those who just need the simple guidelines still have them. I don't want to really get back to a OSRS that is a legal thicket again because that way lies endless arguments about if what happened was the letter of the rule or not.

[Fartsniffage]

I've been on forums before where you can't make a thread unless your post count is X or higher - actually, I think Jolt might have implemented that back in the day, for a bit, unless I remember wrong. So the technology exists to implement it. But it is the most irritating thing in the universe and does nothing but drive new members to spam up existing threads, and I am wholly opposed to it. It's also highly neophobic, openly hostile to new members, and really sucks if the reason you're trying to post is because you're suffering a bug that you want to report.

I won't say "never going to happen", because never is a long time, but "absolutely shouldn't happen", and I don't think Max or [violet] has it in the cards, or would be likely to countenance such a scheme.

There was a period on Jolt where posts from new accounts were reviewed before appearing on the forum. All posts and not just new threads. I can't remember the exact number but I have 10 in my head.

[Grenartia]

I don't believe there is a simple yes or no answer to this. I think some of the reports they both entertain and act on are nothing short of absurd, but generally I don't think things are too bad around here.

The problem may be with the userbase crying to the mods too often moreso than the the mods themselves being overly problematic.

That said, the potential for breaking one of the plethora of stupid rules around here keeps me out of many a discussion.

I'd be interested to hear which rules you think are stupid.

We could go straight to red-text on first offenses, I suppose. And there is a 6-hour ban, too, which might be used more often.

I'm all for skipping unofficial warnings (at least for individuals in cases where a rule is clearly being broken, but I can see it still being useful for keeping a thread on track without doing a lock and trawl, and would certainly love to see them being used whenever somebody's close to crossing a line), and expanding the use of less than 24 hour bans.

You would be quite surprised then, to know that Nationstates is in use in several schools, and that there have been plenty of times in the past where we have had great success in communicating with the schools where a troublemaker was coming from. (Probably the most infamous being the porn/shock image spammer that was tracked down to a Catholic high school, where the student was reamed a new one by the school and his parents, and barred access to any of the internet-capable computers unless he was under adult supervision.)

Obviously, some schools are going to be more technologically capable than others, but most of them have some manner of terms of service for using their computers. The odds are usually pretty good that someone doing something enough to get the entire school banned here is probably also violating those school rules, which is something that the school is a bit more likely to act on.

As for opinions and trolling, that is and forever will be the eternal balancing act we're somehow never going to get right, at least not to everyone's satisfaction. If we crack down, we're too harsh. If we ease up, we're not harsh enough. We cannot outline a complete legalistic code to provide a concrete framework for every single possible instance (because we're not robots, and more importantly, neither are the players!,) but "Don't be a dick." isn't concrete enough. We outline stuff at length in the OSRS, people complain it's too long to read; we shorten and simplify the OSRS, people complain it's too vague. That's part of why we have such an extensive appeal system, to try and compensate for the fact that no two cases are going to be exactly alike or viewed the same way by different mods.

Another thing to consider in enforcement shifts is that the tools have changed over time. Way back in yon early days, we had what was basically a "two strikes and you're DEAT" setup, primarily due to limited manpower compared to now, and vastly more limited tools. When all you had was a delete button, that was how you solved everything. Over time, the tools have broadened in scope, offering a wider array of enforcement options that have enabled a gentler (and arguably fairer) level of enforcement that can be better tailored to the specific nature of the offense. Does it sometimes mean an honest troll slips by longer than anybody would prefer now and then? Undoubtedly. But that troll is still going to eventually get nailed, and it also means that clumsy newcomers, people with non-majority opinions, folks having a bad day now and again, and other basically innocent folks have a chance to shape up before they get cut down. Under the older, harsher systems, we probably lost a large number of people who might have become contributing members of the community save for a rough start that resulted in deletions.

I can't say I speak for the team, but I would rather take longer (to better establish a pattern) to nuke a questionable case troll who is, at worst, really bloody irritating, than to start laying about me wildly with the banhammer whenever things get the least bit heated. In a forum as politically skewed as this one, a dissenting opinion (classic case: conservative users in a heavily left-leaning forum) is going to stir things up; but merely having a controversial opinion does not a troll make. The difference between controversial opinion and troll is an insanely blurry one that takes time to determine; not all trolls are going to march in with a conveniently blatant screed about "I'mma Nazi, lawl, kill teh Jews!" In practice, the more radical an opinion is, the harder it is to argue without running foul of the rules, but there are plenty of perfectly valid and non-radical dissenting opinions out there. So long as we allow those opinions to come into contact, there are going to be arguments and potentially baseless accusations of trolling. The only absolute solution would be to simply bar contentious topics (such as politics or religion,) which is something that we're never going to do, because there is no way in hell that would fly with [v] or with Max.

So what would be a desirable way to land harder on things, while still maintaining the flexibility necessary? Do away with slap-on-the-wrist unofficial warnings and cautions in favor of always going for *** the ominous red text? *** Default to 1-day bans on first offenses/greater use of short-term bans lower on the punishment ladder? These are the sorts of things that will give us helpful feedback. For instance, I would be okay skipping the unofficial cautions in favor of going straight to the official warning; unofficials largely serve the purpose of simply building up a picture of the user's habits, but the redtext could serve in that role as well. Heck, I'd even be down with more liberal use of short term 1-day bans, though I imagine people would still be unhappy whenever a bad day or flash of temper lands them on the receiving end of one.

I think that simply handing out more warnings, official or unofficial, would be good. Not in the sense that you should use warnings instead of bans, but instead use them for some of the not-quite-actionable edge cases. Just as a reminder that they're close to the edge, and they should take some care.

Edit: To make a more robust proposal, I think that unofficial warnings should be used for borderline cases, and official warnings for all actionable things that don't merit a ban.

Indeed.

Hmm... I can see this being helpful as commentary. I'm not sure if you've wandered over to the SC section, but Sedge has been keeping a compendium of rulings for the SC that expand and explain the Security Council rules, but do not modify the SC rules. The rules are still the same 4 simple ones, but his commentaries help players navigate and point to helpful rulings about things. The problem I have with making such commentary the actual rules would be the idea that trolling is THUS, the problem being that we have people who would argue that they didn't do THUS and THUS wasn't trolling.

I would actually be in favor of this. Like, have the current OSRS (updating things as needed, of course), but also have a separate, more in-depth clarification section that merely clarifies the rules listed in the OSRS.

[United Marxist Nations]

Yeah, the smaller bans sound like a good way to give someone time to cool off without carrying the weight of the more serious bans.

[Cornupication]

I don't believe there is a simple yes or no answer to this. I think some of the reports they both entertain and act on are nothing short of absurd, but generally I don't think things are too bad around here.

The problem may be with the userbase crying to the mods too often moreso than the the mods themselves being overly problematic.

That said, the potential for breaking one of the plethora of stupid rules around here keeps me out of many a discussion.

I'd be interested to hear which rules you think are stupid.

We could go straight to red-text on first offenses, I suppose. And there is a 6-hour ban, too, which might be used more often.

My two cents:
I...don't actually think getting rid of the unofficial warnings would be a good idea. I think that they're a good resource to use with new nations that maybe aren't fully aware with every rule. A quick "knock that off" followed by a link to the rules might help, where the red text might scare them off. I'm interested in the short band though.

For comparison, I am a moderator/expert on wiki.answers.com - a little different because we allow unregistered users to post. However, our ban lengths can be as short as 15 minutes, and obviously as long as...forever. my point is that short bans, when I've used them, seem to get the message across that rulebreaking isn't isn't tolerated, while still not escalating the situation further than it needs to be if it isn't a prolific spammer.

In short, I'd say keep unofficial warns for new nations, think about short bans that can be used for first or second time offences of people with clean records. Sometimes people just need a couple of hours to defuse.

[NERVUN]

I've been on forums before where you can't make a thread unless your post count is X or higher - actually, I think Jolt might have implemented that back in the day, for a bit, unless I remember wrong. So the technology exists to implement it. But it is the most irritating thing in the universe and does nothing but drive new members to spam up existing threads, and I am wholly opposed to it. It's also highly neophobic, openly hostile to new members, and really sucks if the reason you're trying to post is because you're suffering a bug that you want to report.

I won't say "never going to happen", because never is a long time, but "absolutely shouldn't happen", and I don't think Max or [violet] has it in the cards, or would be likely to countenance such a scheme.

There was a period on Jolt where posts from new accounts were reviewed before appearing on the forum. All posts and not just new threads. I can't remember the exact number but I have 10 in my head.

I think it was ten, I joined in the middle of that and was quite annoyed with it.

[The Batorys]

So what would be a desirable way to land harder on things, while still maintaining the flexibility necessary? Do away with slap-on-the-wrist unofficial warnings and cautions in favor of always going for *** the ominous red text? *** Default to 1-day bans on first offenses/greater use of short-term bans lower on the punishment ladder? These are the sorts of things that will give us helpful feedback. For instance, I would be okay skipping the unofficial cautions in favor of going straight to the official warning; unofficials largely serve the purpose of simply building up a picture of the user's habits, but the redtext could serve in that role as well. Heck, I'd even be down with more liberal use of short term 1-day bans, though I imagine people would still be unhappy whenever a bad day or flash of temper lands them on the receiving end of one.

So, I'm not sure how many unofficial, and official warnings one gets (I'm sure it depends on the circumstances to a large degree), but say we currently get an unofficial warning, and then an official one, before any bans take place or whatever.

Maybe just do away with unofficial warnings, and just instead of having people get an unofficial one, and then an official one, just have two official ones with the ominous red text, along with the official TG notifying the user of the warning. Would probably work just as well at illustrating a picture of a user's habits, and also probably be easier to keep track of, while also being just slightly more strict.

Someone else mentioned, too, that there used to be more bans that were less than one day in length, like a few hours. Maybe it'd be good to bring these back? Might especially work if someone did break the rules and flame someone, but in the circumstance it was, while not okay, somewhat understandable, like falling for really bad flamebait or something.

[The Batorys]

I'd be interested to hear which rules you think are stupid.

We could go straight to red-text on first offenses, I suppose. And there is a 6-hour ban, too, which might be used more often.

My two cents:
I...don't actually think getting rid of the unofficial warnings would be a good idea. I think that they're a good resource to use with new nations that maybe aren't fully aware with every rule. A quick "knock that off" followed by a link to the rules might help, where the red text might scare them off. I'm interested in the short band though.

For comparison, I am a moderator/expert on wiki.answers.com - a little different because we allow unregistered users to post. However, our ban lengths can be as short as 15 minutes, and obviously as long as...forever. my point is that short bans, when I've used them, seem to get the message across that rulebreaking isn't isn't tolerated, while still not escalating the situation further than it needs to be if it isn't a prolific spammer.

In short, I'd say keep unofficial warns for new nations, think about short bans that can be used for first or second time offences of people with clean records. Sometimes people just need a couple of hours to defuse.

The rules are stickied at the top of the forums. They are easily accessible to everyone.

While it has been a long time since I've read them, I do remember reading them when I was new. Am I the only one who does this when joining forums?

[The Batorys]

I don't believe there is a simple yes or no answer to this. I think some of the reports they both entertain and act on are nothing short of absurd, but generally I don't think things are too bad around here.

The problem may be with the userbase crying to the mods too often moreso than the the mods themselves being overly problematic.

That said, the potential for breaking one of the plethora of stupid rules around here keeps me out of many a discussion.

I'd be interested to hear which rules you think are stupid.

We could go straight to red-text on first offenses, I suppose. And there is a 6-hour ban, too, which might be used more often.

I think both of these would be good to implement.

[Reploid Productions]

While it has been a long time since I've read them, I do remember reading them when I was new. Am I the only one who does this when joining forums?

While not the only one, sadly you're a rarity.

As for the shorter-than-1-day bans, looks like we've got options available for 30 minutes, 60 minutes, and 6 hours. Could be a useful "Calm your tits!" smack with less weight than the day-or-longer ones. Hrm.

[Cornupication]

My two cents:
I...don't actually think getting rid of the unofficial warnings would be a good idea. I think that they're a good resource to use with new nations that maybe aren't fully aware with every rule. A quick "knock that off" followed by a link to the rules might help, where the red text might scare them off. I'm interested in the short band though.

For comparison, I am a moderator/expert on wiki.answers.com - a little different because we allow unregistered users to post. However, our ban lengths can be as short as 15 minutes, and obviously as long as...forever. my point is that short bans, when I've used them, seem to get the message across that rulebreaking isn't isn't tolerated, while still not escalating the situation further than it needs to be if it isn't a prolific spammer.

In short, I'd say keep unofficial warns for new nations, think about short bans that can be used for first or second time offences of people with clean records. Sometimes people just need a couple of hours to defuse.

The rules are stickied at the top of the forums. They are easily accessible to everyone.

While it has been a long time since I've read them, I do remember reading them when I was new. Am I the only one who does this when joining forums?

..yes. and the rules to the other site that I moderate on gives you the rule links in a message when you sign up. That wasn't my point. As well as the OSRS, there are also certain things that will get you warned that you maybe wouldn't know about if you'd joined that day. I'm not saying hold their hand until they're a certain age, but if someone seems to genuinely not know about a particular rule, slamming a banhammer on them the first day is going to push them away. Give them a bit of guidance, and if they carry on...fire away with the hammer.

[Imperializt Russia]

While it has been a long time since I've read them, I do remember reading them when I was new. Am I the only one who does this when joining forums?

While not the only one, sadly you're a rarity.

As for the shorter-than-1-day bans, looks like we've got options available for 30 minutes, 60 minutes, and 6 hours. Could be a useful "Calm your tits!" smack with less weight than the day-or-longer ones. Hrm.

How are bans listed on a person's account for their history?
Is it "number of times banned", total time spent on ban, or a breakdown of how many of each type of ban received? If the latter, the 1-6hr bans could be useful for new players, depending on severity and situation, but would require a very case-by-case review for each handed out.

Who knows, by the time you've researched enough to hand down a 1hr ban, they've already worked up to a 6h or a one-day

[Grenartia]

My two cents:
I...don't actually think getting rid of the unofficial warnings would be a good idea. I think that they're a good resource to use with new nations that maybe aren't fully aware with every rule. A quick "knock that off" followed by a link to the rules might help, where the red text might scare them off. I'm interested in the short band though.

For comparison, I am a moderator/expert on wiki.answers.com - a little different because we allow unregistered users to post. However, our ban lengths can be as short as 15 minutes, and obviously as long as...forever. my point is that short bans, when I've used them, seem to get the message across that rulebreaking isn't isn't tolerated, while still not escalating the situation further than it needs to be if it isn't a prolific spammer.

In short, I'd say keep unofficial warns for new nations, think about short bans that can be used for first or second time offences of people with clean records. Sometimes people just need a couple of hours to defuse.

The rules are stickied at the top of the forums. They are easily accessible to everyone.

While it has been a long time since I've read them, I do remember reading them when I was new. Am I the only one who does this when joining forums?

No, I did it, too.

While it has been a long time since I've read them, I do remember reading them when I was new. Am I the only one who does this when joining forums?

While not the only one, sadly you're a rarity.

As for the shorter-than-1-day bans, looks like we've got options available for 30 minutes, 60 minutes, and 6 hours. Could be a useful "Calm your tits!" smack with less weight than the day-or-longer ones. Hrm.

Is it wrong that I now heartily want us to start calling less-than-24-hour bans a "Calm Your Tits!", if yall actually start making them an official punishment?

While not the only one, sadly you're a rarity.

As for the shorter-than-1-day bans, looks like we've got options available for 30 minutes, 60 minutes, and 6 hours. Could be a useful "Calm your tits!" smack with less weight than the day-or-longer ones. Hrm.

How are bans listed on a person's account for their history?
Is it "number of times banned", total time spent on ban, or a breakdown of how many of each type of ban received? If the latter, the 1-6hr bans could be useful for new players, depending on severity and situation, but would require a very case-by-case review for each handed out.

Who knows, by the time you've researched enough to hand down a 1hr ban, they've already worked up to a 6h or a one-day

Yeah, I'd also like to see some easier way to see your record, without having to submit a GHR.

[NERVUN]

While not the only one, sadly you're a rarity.

As for the shorter-than-1-day bans, looks like we've got options available for 30 minutes, 60 minutes, and 6 hours. Could be a useful "Calm your tits!" smack with less weight than the day-or-longer ones. Hrm.

How are bans listed on a person's account for their history?
Is it "number of times banned", total time spent on ban, or a breakdown of how many of each type of ban received? If the latter, the 1-6hr bans could be useful for new players, depending on severity and situation, but would require a very case-by-case review for each handed out.

Who knows, by the time you've researched enough to hand down a 1hr ban, they've already worked up to a 6h or a one-day

When we see the record it records is as (Mod) Banned User reason: With the time period and reason entered in by the mod who issued the ban. It doesn't effect the warning level for some odd reason, but it is recorded.