Discussion: Have the mods gone far enough?

[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.

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?

Only if I'm allowed to post pictures of overly excited small birds when I do so.

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

As much as I'd like to agree, that's a function of the software and I don't think we can modify that.

There's also a small problem of Mod privacy. When we warn or ban people, it records our (the Mod's) IP address.

[United Marxist Nations]

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.

Yeah, it's perfect for that.

[Imperializt Russia]

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?

Only if I'm allowed to post pictures of overly excited small birds when I do so.

Please do, I find the thought so sweet.

[United Dependencies]

Well, some on here will disagree, but I also think the mods should have a bias in favor of established posters. Frankly I think we should take steps to restrict the ability of new members to post and make threads, but I'm told that would be too difficult to implement, so... oh well

So longevity allows one to break the rules and snark at newbies?

I think not.

How in the world is THAT consistent moderation?

I don't believe I said that older players should be able to break the rules. In my ideal scenario we remove unofficial warnings and put a smaller time-span to deletions on everyone. Where I think bias would (or should) come in would be on behaviors that get close to the line without going over it. Newer players would be steered towards behavior that drives them away from that line while established players who have shown themselves capable of responding in an adult manner would perhaps be given a little more leeway.

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.

I understand this, and I think it's a symptom of the changing nature of communities as well as the imprecision of finding the appropriate level of rules. The fact that we might get it wrong shouldn't dissuade us from trying different things.

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 can support the idea of having them as commentaries rather than specific rules themselves. I think if we add a heavy disclaimer to the beginning that this could be a helpful tool for our community. I think having a resource that site users can access that delves into some of the criteria used to make mod decisions can help the community better understand mod decisions. While I won't deny that someone somewhere will do his/her best to use whatever rules are posted to try and dance right along the line for as long as possible, I think the benefit as a discussion tool will outweigh the cost. What I mean is that currently debate over what is isn't trolling happens around specific mod decisions. As you know these carry the usual differences and frustrations from players and moderators. By giving more criteria/commentary/examples, we can start to move the discussion into the realm of "why not count this type of action/behavior as a rules violation, or why doesn't this action/behavior not qualify as a rules violation under x rule?" For instance, we could have a discussion about why broad generalizations about religion should/shouldn't count as trolling instead of having this thread.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

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?

I did this after joining the forum and a bit later.

I admit I just read the FAQ before joining.

---

On the topic of moderation. I think the mods do an excellent job at keeping things at bay, being here for almost 2 years now it's a more relaxed atmosphere than the one I've encountered in other forums, however people do grind my gears so it's hard for me to keep control of the situation at times, as those mods who have had to hand out rulings against me might have noticed already.

[Northwest Slobovia]

Only if I'm allowed to post pictures of overly excited small birds when I do so.

Please do, I find the thought so sweet.

I'm in favor of all of the above: short bans, tit-calming, and random small birds.

[Shaggai]

Please do, I find the thought so sweet.

I'm in favor of all of the above: short bans, tit-calming, and random small birds.

Agreed. A few small punishments in the right time and place can do a lot to reduce the need for larger ones.

[Northwest Slobovia]

I'm in favor of all of the above: short bans, tit-calming, and random small birds.

Agreed. A few small punishments in the right time and place can do a lot to reduce the need for larger ones.

That's my hope. I've seen serious discussions of crime and punishment that say it's the likelihood of punishment and not its severity that deter people. So if people got 30-minute (or even 15-minute) time-outs consistently, they should get the idea of what's acceptable around here without having to use the banhammer.

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

Please do, I find the thought so sweet.

I'm in favor of all of the above: short bans, tit-calming, and random small birds.

What I find amusing is the idea that we don't start small with warnings, bans, etc ... that's what we tend to do. The purpose isn't to punish so much as draw attention to the fact that You Are Doing Something Wrong and how to avoid doing it further. With the additional understanding that the beatings will continue to the point of booting you off the site if you can't get it sorted.

That, and the concept of consequences fitting the misstep. Which is why we document all those little things, and make notes for reference, and attempt to keep things in a reasonable line of progression. ymmv.

[United Dependencies]

What I find amusing is the idea that we don't start small with warnings, bans, etc ... that's what we tend to do. The purpose isn't to punish so much as draw attention to the fact that You Are Doing Something Wrong and how to avoid doing it further. With the additional understanding that the beatings will continue to the point of booting you off the site if you can't get it sorted.

That, and the concept of consequences fitting the misstep. Which is why we document all those little things, and make notes for reference, and attempt to keep things in a reasonable line of progression. ymmv.

I don't mind warnings in the slightest. I don't believe that every rules infraction is a malicious attempt to destroy the goodwill of this community. It's just been my perception that people will hang around with a number of "knock it offs" and unofficial warnings and when the red text finally comes out, it's just another "this action is bad, do not do this".

I know warnings look scary with the red-text and all, but my understanding is that it simply changes a number somewhere and puts people on a list for future eyes. I think that makes it perfectly appropriate to start with a warning and then escalate to a ban more quickly than before. The first time someone breaks a rule, they're warned and told that if they repeat their actions that actual punishment will follow. Now if, in the course of escalation, a mod feels that a 1 day ban is too quick, then perhaps shorter bans can be fit in between the formal 1, 3, and week long bans as necessary.

[Northwest Slobovia]

What I find amusing is the idea that we don't start small with warnings, bans, etc ... that's what we tend to do. The purpose isn't to punish so much as draw attention to the fact that You Are Doing Something Wrong and how to avoid doing it further. With the additional understanding that the beatings will continue to the point of booting you off the site if you can't get it sorted.

That, and the concept of consequences fitting the misstep. Which is why we document all those little things, and make notes for reference, and attempt to keep things in a reasonable line of progression. ymmv.

I don't mind warnings in the slightest. I don't believe that every rules infraction is a malicious attempt to destroy the goodwill of this community. It's just been my perception that people will hang around with a number of "knock it offs" and unofficial warnings and when the red text finally comes out, it's just another "this action is bad, do not do this".

Yup, it's not an actual punishment in and of itself, it's just a threat. Actually kicking people off the forum, even for a little while, is an actual punishment. If they're trolling, well, they're stopped. And if they're just a little too emotionally invested in a discussion, they've got a little time to calm down regardless of whether they wanted to or not.

As a side note to that, I prefer giving people time-outs to locking threads because they've flown off the rails. I've been in some threads where parts of the discussion were going perfectly well, and the whole thing was shut down because a few people couldn't cool their jets.

[-The Unified Earth Governments-]

I enjoy Mod service, I have had issues with some, but I don't mind them overall.

Think they deserve a gift.

[NERVUN]

What I find amusing is the idea that we don't start small with warnings, bans, etc ... that's what we tend to do. The purpose isn't to punish so much as draw attention to the fact that You Are Doing Something Wrong and how to avoid doing it further. With the additional understanding that the beatings will continue to the point of booting you off the site if you can't get it sorted.

That, and the concept of consequences fitting the misstep. Which is why we document all those little things, and make notes for reference, and attempt to keep things in a reasonable line of progression. ymmv.

I don't mind warnings in the slightest. I don't believe that every rules infraction is a malicious attempt to destroy the goodwill of this community. It's just been my perception that people will hang around with a number of "knock it offs" and unofficial warnings and when the red text finally comes out, it's just another "this action is bad, do not do this".

I know warnings look scary with the red-text and all, but my understanding is that it simply changes a number somewhere and puts people on a list for future eyes. I think that makes it perfectly appropriate to start with a warning and then escalate to a ban more quickly than before. The first time someone breaks a rule, they're warned and told that if they repeat their actions that actual punishment will follow. Now if, in the course of escalation, a mod feels that a 1 day ban is too quick, then perhaps shorter bans can be fit in between the formal 1, 3, and week long bans as necessary.

I think I'll reiterate this again, unofficial warnings are recorded. We do record them. You may not see it, but we do.

[The Sotoan Union]

Local NSer discovers one weird trick to pointless threads.

Mods hate him.

(If this post itself is too spammish then I'm sorry, but this thread seems to be okay for posting since it hasn't been deleted yet.

[United Dependencies]

I think I'll reiterate this again, unofficial warnings are recorded. We do record them. You may not see it, but we do.

I think that two warnings is too many.

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

I think I'll reiterate this again, unofficial warnings are recorded. We do record them. You may not see it, but we do.

I think that two warnings is too many.

Well granted - if you're minding your business, you shouldn't have any. You might be surprised at how many players are in that position - clean records and all. But hey. *shrugs*

Whether you agree or not on 'unofficial' warnings, they do serve a purpose in the overall big picture, as Nerv has pointed out. We see them. For many new players, that's all it takes - a light tap and a point towards the site rules. It's all we ever see on 'em, thus, mission accomplished.

Bans are more, in my opinion, when a behavior needs to be stopped - be it a chilly down, an escalation from warnings when they haven't been heeded, or something along those lines.

Each level serves a purpose. We have many ways of utilizing them, ample options for the amount of time banned for, and a broadly-accepted pattern within the mod group of how those escalations ought to work. Differences come due to every situation, and player, and their history, being different. We can only standardize so much before it ends up putting square pegs into round holes, if that makes sense for you.

With things properly tracked and files showing all pertinent notations, we're better able to judge what ought to be done in any given moment. That's some of where we run into perception problems with the players - you folks don't have access to those records. You can't see that perhaps this player hasn't had any warnings in 2 years, in spite of having several earlier on. Or that this person is brand new. Or that this person is a puppet and ought to know better. And it goes on from there.

Sure, it would be nice to have everything cut and dried, but so long as we have individuals utilizing the site, we'll need individual attention paid to any issues that arise with those individuals. And judgements made on a case by case basis, taking into account all the information we have to hand at that time.

So - flexibility on making calls, ability of players to work past prior records and not be eternally damned for youthful transgressions, tracked record for good referencing, appeals process for players ... it isn't perfect, it will never be perfect (seeing as we're dealing in imperfections), but it is something we want to continue working with, and adapting as needed. Within reason, of course.

[United Dependencies]

*shrug*

If that avenue is closed, then it is closed.

I think we can agree that we have a number of posters here who feel like toxic opinions have been given too much leeway. I've proposed a shorter leash overall and I've also proposed a change to the way the rules are presented as a way to address the issue these posters bring up.

I think our community should address this issue and if the mods find my other proposal unworkable, I'm happy to try and think up others or discuss/hear the ideas that y'all or others might have.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

*shrug*

If that avenue is closed, then it is closed.

I think we can agree that we have a number of posters here who feel like toxic opinions have been given too much leeway. I've proposed a shorter leash overall and I've also proposed a change to the way the rules are presented as a way to address the issue these posters bring up.

I think our community should address this issue and if the mods find my other proposal unworkable, I'm happy to try and think up others or discuss/hear the ideas that y'all or others might have.

I must agree that we're having toxic opinions that have been given leeway.

Lately, due to the leeway we have given these opinions many times I am not sure whether I am dealing with a troll when arguing down a point or a legitimate point. Sometimes, even, I feel like I am going down the mind of a true psychopath.

[Frisbeeteria]

The main reason I'm not in favor of short term bans is that I'm not sitting here 24/7/365. Most of the time when I react to a reported offense, minutes or hours have passed. I'm also frequently on during late night hours, when a lot of posters have already left for the evening. A 15/30/60 minute ban has zero impact if you're not online, as the timer starts when I hit the Ban key, not "the next time said player tries to post". And no, the forum software can't be adjusted to be that flexible.

Sure, they're nice when you catch somebody in the heat of the argument, but that doesn't happen all that often. A 24 hour ban says "You did something REALLY bad. You should investigate what it was, since we've kindly linked you to the offensive post / moderation punishment post."

[Grenartia]

I'm in favor of all of the above: short bans, tit-calming, and random small birds.

What I find amusing is the idea that we don't start small with warnings, bans, etc ... that's what we tend to do. The purpose isn't to punish so much as draw attention to the fact that You Are Doing Something Wrong and how to avoid doing it further. With the additional understanding that the beatings will continue to the point of booting you off the site if you can't get it sorted.

That, and the concept of consequences fitting the misstep. Which is why we document all those little things, and make notes for reference, and attempt to keep things in a reasonable line of progression. ymmv.

Uh, Nathi, I don't think anybody here has disputed the fact that Moderation starts small with warnings and bans.

I don't mind warnings in the slightest. I don't believe that every rules infraction is a malicious attempt to destroy the goodwill of this community. It's just been my perception that people will hang around with a number of "knock it offs" and unofficial warnings and when the red text finally comes out, it's just another "this action is bad, do not do this".

Yup, it's not an actual punishment in and of itself, it's just a threat. Actually kicking people off the forum, even for a little while, is an actual punishment. If they're trolling, well, they're stopped. And if they're just a little too emotionally invested in a discussion, they've got a little time to calm down regardless of whether they wanted to or not.

As a side note to that, I prefer giving people time-outs to locking threads because they've flown off the rails. I've been in some threads where parts of the discussion were going perfectly well, and the whole thing was shut down because a few people couldn't cool their jets.

Agreed.

I don't mind warnings in the slightest. I don't believe that every rules infraction is a malicious attempt to destroy the goodwill of this community. It's just been my perception that people will hang around with a number of "knock it offs" and unofficial warnings and when the red text finally comes out, it's just another "this action is bad, do not do this".

I know warnings look scary with the red-text and all, but my understanding is that it simply changes a number somewhere and puts people on a list for future eyes. I think that makes it perfectly appropriate to start with a warning and then escalate to a ban more quickly than before. The first time someone breaks a rule, they're warned and told that if they repeat their actions that actual punishment will follow. Now if, in the course of escalation, a mod feels that a 1 day ban is too quick, then perhaps shorter bans can be fit in between the formal 1, 3, and week long bans as necessary.

I think I'll reiterate this again, unofficial warnings are recorded. We do record them. You may not see it, but we do.

Which begs the question of what, exactly, the difference is between an official warning and an unofficial warning, aside from use of the Warn code.

*shrug*

If that avenue is closed, then it is closed.

I think we can agree that we have a number of posters here who feel like toxic opinions have been given too much leeway. I've proposed a shorter leash overall and I've also proposed a change to the way the rules are presented as a way to address the issue these posters bring up.

I think our community should address this issue and if the mods find my other proposal unworkable, I'm happy to try and think up others or discuss/hear the ideas that y'all or others might have.

I must agree that we're having toxic opinions that have been given leeway.

Lately, due to the leeway we have given these opinions many times I am not sure whether I am dealing with a troll when arguing down a point or a legitimate point. Sometimes, even, I feel like I am going down the mind of a true psychopath.

I have to agree.

[Frisbeeteria]

Which begs the question of what, exactly, the difference is between an official warning and an unofficial warning, aside from use of the Warn code.

One increments the numerical Warnings counter. The other does not.

Grenartia, could you maybe spoiler the stuff you're quoting, or perhaps just snip out the relevant bits? Your posts are unnecessarily massive and make the thread hard to read.

[The United Neptumousian Empire]

I don't believe so.

I do. As someone who has been on this site for 5 years, I'd say that, overall, the mods have become much more lenient, or at the very least much more hesitant to act with regards to rule violations such as trolling. Posting a provocative opinion which a few years back would have been smacked down quickly as an obvious troll, now allows one free reign to spread their bullshit for extended periods of time as legitimate opinions we need to "argue down".
There's other issues I see with the current state of the forum, i.e. established and respected posters leaving of becoming less active,and a large demographics shift the average age on the forum decreasing significantly over the past several years. (compare 2010 to 2014 as well as sharp drop in the number of females on this site 18% in 2011 vs 10% only 2 years later Overall though I think that these issues to back to the shift in moderation's position regarding what does and doesn't constitute trolling.

Trolls don't care about warnings. Trolls don't care about nation deletions. For the most part, trolls don't even care about being banned from a forum all together, they'll just go find another. It matters to everyone else. The population you end up with is indicative of how you handle trolls like this. And every time you let someone go "oh I love first class, otherwise I'd have to sit with smell poor people!" Every time you let someone post a "not equals" sign in protest of gay marriage rights cases as their flag, every time you let someone complain about "my family makes $500,000 a year, I don't want to pay for some crack whore to have a 12th kid" and you do NOTHING about it, you cause intelligent, mature adults to go "you know what? fuck this. I'm out". When you let profoundly misogynistic viewpoints fester and linger, you drive away women.
And this is not speculation. This is demographically PROVEN. Look:
In 2010 43% of NSG was 21+, 16% of the forum was 15 or under.
in 2014 29% of NSG was 21+, 24% of the forum was 15 or under.
What's especially damning about this is, think about what this means. If NSG had a stable population, average age would rise. That's what people DO right? They get older. In 4 years the average age of NSG has dropped about 4 years. But this doesn't mean that for everyone of age X who leaves, someone of age X-4 joins. The percentage of the population that stayed would logically age 4 years in the gap. In order for average age to drop 4 years in a 4 year span, and maintain a roughly stable population with a certain % exodus and a certain % joining fresh, for every person who leaves someone on average 6.5 years YOUNGER must join to counter act the logical impact time has on average age. In short, if population was stable, we'd expect an average age 4 years older 4 years later. If we were merely losing an average of 4 years for every time a poster leaves and another poster joins, average age would remain the same.
What we have seen is a DRAMATIC drop in average age of joining posters, and a DRAMATIC drop in average age of retained posters, this is the only way to account for an average age DECLINING across time. This is not simply a matter of older posters outnumbered by younger ones, the poll sample had similar sizes?
What about gender? Well gender doesn't change with time, so we should see a fairly static number.
In 2011 18% of NSG identified as female.
In 2014 10% of NSG identified as female.
There's really nothing I really need to say about that is there?

I disagree. Banning for trolling should be lenient, because how can you be sure someone is trolling, in some borderline cases? I've been banned for 'trolling' before, and I've never once trolled on this site, at least not in recent memory. I've been banned simply because people didn't like my opinion, and decided to label it trolling, because it wasn't in line with the liberal majority opinion.

Well, actually maybe it's not entirely right to say they should be more lenient. More like less biased. I've seen some incredibly obvious trolls get off with only a warning, sometimes even an unofficial one. I think the mods are more likely to target conservatives then they are others.

[The United Neptumousian Empire]

The main reason I'm not in favor of short term bans is that I'm not sitting here 24/7/365. Most of the time when I react to a reported offense, minutes or hours have passed. I'm also frequently on during late night hours, when a lot of posters have already left for the evening. A 15/30/60 minute ban has zero impact if you're not online, as the timer starts when I hit the Ban key, not "the next time said player tries to post". And no, the forum software can't be adjusted to be that flexible.

Sure, they're nice when you catch somebody in the heat of the argument, but that doesn't happen all that often. A 24 hour ban says "You did something REALLY bad. You should investigate what it was, since we've kindly linked you to the offensive post / moderation punishment post."

Yeah, I don't get the bit with the link. It links you to the post, but you can't view it while signed in because it doesn't let you view the forums while banned, so you have to sign out.

I've always wondered how you appeal a ban, since you can't post in the moderation forums in order to do so.

[Frisbeeteria]

I've always wondered how you appeal a ban, since you can't post in the moderation forums in order to do so.

I guess that points out that you haven't carefully read the rules sticky, since it's pretty clearly stated that you have to file a GHR. We probably ought up update the anchor tags and make the Table of Contents more complete so that's easier to find.

[Northwest Slobovia]

The main reason I'm not in favor of short term bans is that I'm not sitting here 24/7/365. Most of the time when I react to a reported offense, minutes or hours have passed. I'm also frequently on during late night hours, when a lot of posters have already left for the evening. A 15/30/60 minute ban has zero impact if you're not online, as the timer starts when I hit the Ban key, not "the next time said player tries to post". And no, the forum software can't be adjusted to be that flexible.

I know it's best-effort, and won't work perfectly, but could y'all try it and see if it works when you can catch people?