Arguments for moderation policy reform

[The Cat-Tribe]

Two standards. One applied to one side of the matter, and the other applied to the other side of the same matter.

But not double.

Right.

You're assuming that players and moderators are on different sides. I don't see it that way. I see it as player vs player and mods are referees(cops would be a better metaphor).

Your fellow Mods used a very different way of describing the dynamic. They saw a Mod whose ruling was challenged as a DEFENDANT being ACCUSED of wrongdoing by a player. (Even you originally described feeling this way at times.)

[The Cat-Tribe]

Again though, if moderators are getting this heated over the mere implication that something MIGHT be wrong with their process

That's not why anyone is becoming heated. Note that both this thread and previous examples similar to it started off with mods and players amicably discussing (for a little over two pages) suggestions for improving the process: suggesting acceptance of flaws therein.

Why do the threads wind up like this, then?

I'd say it's a riddle for the ages, but really, more or less the same things happen every time.

Yes, I'm sure many of you do what you do because you think it's best. Have you considered you might be wrong?

Frequently. I tend to see the process as less important than the results, though.

That's very nice. I assume a thread discussing the "results" of past Moderation decisions and what some of us think about them would be immediately locked as unwelcome, however. (And rightly so.)

We were invited to suggest changes to the process -- which makes sense given that the process described in the OSRS is not being followed by the Mods. I understand some of the the suggestions may have been abrasively worded or seemed hostile to some Mods, but to say it all doesn't matter because the process isn't important begs the question of why you have rules about the process at all and why our input was solicited in the first place. If you don't care (as you seem to be saying), don't ask and don't pretend to follow a process.

[Maurepas]

What's with all of this defensive crap all the sudden? I mean, are the suggestions good ideas, or aren't they? I really see no reason to get all huffy on either side. I really don't get it.

I know moderation's a pain gig, with more complaints than thanks, but, if someone tells you, "This is how I think you could help reverse that fact...", then why get all argumentative about it, instead of just saying, "yes I agree", or "No, I disagree"?

[The Cat-Tribe]

So then why does the moderator get an additional chance to make his or her case privately during the appeal process?

...because they're explaining their reason for the ruling as opposed to whether they're innocent or not. For the poster it's a case of proving themselves innocent of the moderated charge, for the moderator it's a case of explaining their ruling on that charge.

I don't agree with LG that the hardest issues are personal views clouding judgment*, or at least that this isn't the centre of where these issues happen. These issues happen on the borderline of whether something is or isn't a flame, touching the line between a harsh statement and a flame - although that is likely skewed by closeness to the issue, whether mental health or sexual preference as the main causes I remember.

So the posters opinion is generally known - I'm innocent of the charge, or I'm right in the charge - whereas the ruling is a fine line over what constitutes flaming, or whatever the rule-break is but generally it's flaming.

*In that it might be for the moderator but is not generally the cause of major debate on a ruling.

Of course, and I couldn't speak for them but if moderators are going in with a 'my ruling is right and I'll defend it to the death' attitude then that's an issue if it's protocol but I doubt it is, however one reads Kat's, Czard's or Melkor's statements.

Of course, it is Moderation's own policies that limit comments on complaints to the accused and accuser that exclude the perspective of anyone other than the "fighting" parties and the ruling Moderator in the first place.

It is a little icongruous to make such a rule and then say the need for perspective requires an unfair procedure to get more input in favor of a decision that is being challenged.

Take trolling, for example, a large portion of the NSG community may feel the accused post is clearly trolling. Or some posters may have special insight into why a particular term used or post made is offensive and deliberately provocative. But they aren't allowed any input.
To make things worse, in past cases, Mods who found a post accused of trolling clearly offensive recused themselves and left it to Mods that were "objective" (defined as didn't care) to determine that the post wasn't trolling (which seems a self-fulfilling prophecy).

Finally, we've seen ample evidence in this thread from at least 4 Mods that they do take challenges to their rulings personally and do see them as accusations of wrongdoing. They may have used language that was hyperbolic and they would retract on reflection, but the sentiment seems clear.

Under these conditions, where the rules artificially pit an individual poster against a ruling by a Mod and, not only does that Mod feel a personal stake in "defending" his/her ruling, but the Mods as a group feel the need to act as group and protect each other, a process that allows the Mod whose ruling is appealed to be part of the appellate process is unfair by any measure.

Sure, by many measures, this isn't a big deal. By many measures, Nationstates isn't a big deal. Some of us care about it. Some of us want it to be better. Some of us want it to be as fair and justly ruled as possible. Is that really too much to ask?

[The Cat-Tribe]

I am also vaguely bothered by the fact that the most common and pressing concern from.moderators, when faced with possible policy changes, is "what is good for the moderators?" And not "what's best for the forum?"

Seriously. If the primary objection is "But it makes my job harder...." again, grow a skin. You volunteered to help better the community, not the other way around

If that our most common and pressing concern, this thread would have been locked a long time ago.

There are already grumbles that this thread is turning from a forward moving conversation of improvements to be made to the rules moderators must follow to a circular kvetching at the mods for doing what's expected of them by the OWNER.

I support some of these changes, but don't think for one second that I'm not going to discuss BOTH the potential risks AND rewards of doing so and don't think that the decision to make those changes is mine. Or yours.

When I came onto this thread, some of you(mods included) were dug in and hunkered down and not to blow my own horn, but I think I did a good job of getting this conversation moving forward again. But now you and Murayvets are hunkering down again and I won't do the same. You've explained your perspective, I've explained mine. I've done my best to give you a glimpse behind the curtain to help figure out what can and should change and what will be resisted because many of us believe very strongly that some of what we do is for a very good reason. This might come as a shock to you after all the discussions and debates on NSG, but I don't feel the need to agree with you or convince you not do I feel the need to be convinced.

Surely you must remember even back when I wasn't a mod that I didn't work that way. It's enough for me to give and then thoroughly explain my position. I have nothing to win by being right and nothing to lose by being wrong. I'm okay with discord. Hell, I prefer it. More than once I've defended threads like this because it gives players a chance to offer perspective, solution or at least a chance to vent. As long as this thread moves forward, I'll continue to defend it. But if it turns into a round and round circle of kvetching and accusations, I'll lock it myself.

This phrase worries me. Are you saying there are certain marching orders from Max that conflict with some of what we are suggesting and/or with a fair, just, or transparent process? If not, what are you referring to and why are you bringing it up?

I don't mean to sound paranoid, but, given some of [violet]'s pronouncements from on high, I'm starting to think you are right that we are pissing in the wind because NS Moderation is simply not going to change because higher powers like it the way it is.

[Barringtonia]

Given what can be agreed on...

1. Rules need simplifying/clarifying - poster contribution, either in pointing out flaws and/or contributions? One example is placing a clearer outline of what punishment is for what transgression etc.,
2. Reminder for clear delineation between acting as a moderator or a poster - my suggestion is anonymising moderators but that's highly unlikely, it might be moderators simply use moderator names for moderation and another name when posting, it might be red text is remembered to be used properly or a simple 'this is just my opinion/this is the official stance'
3. Bind the stickies into one with all information contained within, aside from occasional hot topic stickies (i.e. Wikileaks)
4. Appeals change - frankly I see this going nowhere but perhaps a clear format for how rulings are handed down. i.e.
Nature of warning (flaming, flamebait etc.,)
Punishment - aligned with clear alignment of transgression/punishment outline..
Reasons for (instances) with links to offending example.
Possible addition of moderator assent/dissent numbers
5. Mod Only - remove this, spam is spam, pointing out significant information is something else.

Ultimately a regular format helps remove the vague nature, or just the perception of vagueness, and helps provide a framework that spills over into a better framework when ruling.

EDIT: Thinking about it, perhaps format of complaints to moderation can be standardised as well, but really I only see it as necessary for the Appeals process.

I would happily help to edit/simplify the rules with help, all subject to moderator involvement, overview and acceptance. Perhaps a Wikirules site can be made for collaboration help.

Here, I've put together a structure that can be adapted to each board, most content can be thrown in from existing material and terminology can be changed, it's all open-source baby!

READ: All you need to know about posting and posters

• For a guide to the rules of NSG scroll down or click here
• To introduce yourself to the board scroll down or click here
• To learn about players personal and political positions scroll down or click here
• For an introduction and glossary of the game click here
• For a technical guide to posting on these boards click here
• To learn about Moderators including how you might become one click here
• To see a list of useful IRC channels for further interaction scroll down or click here

NEVER GIVE YOUR PASSWORD TO ANYONE, NOT A MODERATOR NOT A POSTER NOT YOUR BROTHER – YOUR NATION WILL BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR ANYTHING POSTED UNDER ITS NAME

THE RULES

Introduction

These rules are designed to assist you in understanding the limits of what you can and cannot post on NSG as well as any consequences for transgressing them but first some basic words of wisdom.

The nature of debating online is adversarial and this can quickly veer into personal remarks where debate becomes heated. If you feel yourself becoming irritated by another player the first actions to take are:

1. STOP. Sit back and take a few breaths
2. If you feel the poster is aggressive then let that player know that you’re becoming irritated and ask if they could they be mindful of that while you simmer down
3. If it’s due to something you feel crosses the line then report it to the Moderation board here [link]

The main thing is to not cross the line yourself, only you have control over what you do and only you will receive the consequences for crossing the line.

For some helpful tips read through the following useful links in terms of helping to maintaining peace on forums here [link to putting out fires and etc]

What you can post

[List – news articles with commentary, philosophical questions etc.,]

While there is some leeway these are the sorts of threads and posts we like, you can learn the boundaries better by what you cannot post

What you cannot post

[List –bad links, image spam, games, copycat, copy pasta, etc.,]

Continued transgression of these after you’re informed these cannot be posted will likely result in a warning, however there are certain actions that are considered more serious and these are listed below

Transgressions

In terms of what crosses the line, these are the actions that have consequences when transgressed

Flaming – Flaming is… [example]

[List series of transgressions – note these are specifically those that have consequences other than for repetition]

Consequences

Following are the consequences of transgressing these actions:

Flaming [Link to description]
Mild [example] [1 warning]
Medium [example] [2 warnings]
Strong [example] [3 warnings]

[list consequences]

The consequences remain on your record for 6 months except for DEAT [link to glossary term] or DoS[link to glossary term], which are permanent.

Warnings

Following is the sequence by which a poster will receive warnings where multiple consequences are made within a 6 month period. Note that Moderators reserve leeway for alternative consequences where deemed necessary and will provide details of why that decision is made. Do not think this is license to transgress within the limits.

2 warnings = 1 day ban
3 warnings = 3 day ban
4 warnings = 1 week ban
5 warnings = 2 week ban
6 warnings = DEAT
2 DEATS = DoS

For example, a 1 week ban followed by a 3 day ban within 6 months will result in a DEAT.

Moderation

The process for filing a complaint in Moderation is as follows:
1. Link to the offending post by clicking and copying the small page icon in the top left-hand corner of the offending post
2. State the nature of the transgression you believe has taken place
3. Add in any context or relevant information you feel necessary

Either the accused or those with relevant information can add to the complaint, irrelevant spam or personal comments will not be tolerated.

A moderator will then provide a ruling on the complaint.

If you believe the ruling is incorrect you can then submit a Getting Help Request [link] in which case you need to link to the thread in Moderation and outline why you feel the ruling is incorrect adding any relevant information and context you think impacts the ruling. GHR requires the Moderators to come to a consensus on the ruling after which they will add a post to the Moderation providing:

1. The conclusion
2. The specific points upon which they based that conclusion
3. The number Moderators who assented or dissented to this conclusion

The case is then closed. While you might continue to disagree with the ruling please remember that a warning does not affect your life nor is it a sign the Moderators hate you. It is simply a means to resolve the situation quickly so everyone can continue with their lives, including the Moderators.

[NERVUN]

*Totally dropping in while working, and Mura, I now have STOP! In the Name of Love! stuck in my head! *
Generally what we're concerned about is Mod shopping. If it ends up with players assuming Mod A is much, hmm, nicer than Mod B it becomes an issue when we see posts with "I refuse to accept Mod B's judgement, I want Mod A to rule".

*Goes back to work*

...and?

I mean, what would happen if someone tried to pull that right now? It's not like they have an option of accepting a ruling or not; repeated infractions lead to harsher punishments, no? So if someone doesn't accept Mod B's judgement and continues with that conduct, then it gets punished more severely as repeated offenses presumably already do.

And when we get one or two people, it's not so much of an issue. When we've got a LOT of people thinking that they'd get a better ruling with Mod A, THEN we have an issue.

Now I admit I kind of like the assigning of numbers to just say, Mods 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 met with the following result meaning you guys can see the process but not who made it as long as it is understood that once the decision is made, we must act as if we all fully agree.

There have been times when I was not happy at all with a decision, but once it was decided... it's my job to support it. Thankfully, so far, that situation has happened only a few times.

*bit of snipping because I've got a sick kid*
I would happily help to edit/simplify the rules with help, all subject to moderator involvement, overview and acceptance. Perhaps a Wikirules site can be made for collaboration help.

I'm sorry if someone has brought this up, I might have missed it, but has anyone posted a rule that they think is vague or too dense or whatnot and then what they think it should be?

I've asked this before and, to the best of my knowledge, no one has posted such.

[Sarkhaan]

I've done my best to give you a glimpse behind the curtain t

I will start by saying that I have not read the entire thread, but this caught my eye.

This...bothers me. A lot. Why? Because it is not only acknowledging that there IS a curtain, but that it takes great effort and dozens of posts just to grant us players a "glimpse" behind it.

[Barringtonia]

*bit of snipping because I've got a sick kid*
I would happily help to edit/simplify the rules with help, all subject to moderator involvement, overview and acceptance. Perhaps a Wikirules site can be made for collaboration help.

I'm sorry if someone has brought this up, I might have missed it, but has anyone posted a rule that they think is vague or too dense or whatnot and then what they think it should be?

I've asked this before and, to the best of my knowledge, no one has posted such.

I think the issue is twofold:

1. Overall the information is badly structured and all over the place leading to multiple, overlapping stickies
2. There is little clarity or outline to the rules and the consequences of transgressing them

The second is very much up to consideration but was outlined in NAs original post.

[NERVUN]

I'm sorry if someone has brought this up, I might have missed it, but has anyone posted a rule that they think is vague or too dense or whatnot and then what they think it should be?

I've asked this before and, to the best of my knowledge, no one has posted such.

I think the issue is twofold:

1. Overall the information is badly structured and all over the place leading to multiple, overlapping stickies
2. There is little clarity or outline to the rules and the consequences of transgressing them

The second is very much up to consideration but was outlined in NAs original post.

For the overlapping stickies, I agree. As for the second, the transgressions bit I can also get behind for the most part. It's the little clarity or outline part that I'm not sure what you guys mean.

Leaving behind the whole appeal process, I'm really wondering if you could give us an example of a rule that is not clear and how you would fix it.

[Abatoir]

Wow. This reminds me of that nonsense with Sandpit however many years ago.

Except with 90% fewer potheads and 5000% more ego. I mean, seriously, I haven't seen this many self-important, longwinded and self absorbed people since, well, finish that analogy in whichever way you prefer; I'm tired.

Still, I suppose I should add something of substance before I get reported for being an asshole.

1) That bit about no more unofficial warnings: Since we all love cop/judge metaphors, I look at them as a warning ticket. It's a reminder to quit speeding, but it doesn't jack up your insurance rates. Seem fine to me.

2) No more "mods only" thing: Sounds good to me. Then again, I liked it when people were given forumbans for spamming moderation. Anyway, every thread should be assumed to be mods only. Except ones like this.

3) All this appeals nonsense: so much noise. You'd think someone's life hung in the balance. How about a little perspective? I've read novels shorter than this thread.

[Geniasis]

Wow. This reminds me of that nonsense with Sandpit however many years ago.

Except with 90% fewer potheads and 5000% more ego. I mean, seriously, I haven't seen this many self-important, longwinded and self absorbed people since, well, finish that analogy in whichever way you prefer; I'm tired.

Charming.

Still, I suppose I should add something of substance before I get reported for being an asshole.

Technically, being an asshole isn't against the rules. It just means you can't be a boring and uninspired one.

Innovate.

1) That bit about no more unofficial warnings: Since we all love cop/judge metaphors, I look at them as a warning ticket. It's a reminder to quit speeding, but it doesn't jack up your insurance rates. Seem fine to me.

The issue is, there's a concern that these are held against posters in judging future incidents when it really shouldn't be.

To extend your metaphor, you can only get a certain number of moving violations before you get your license taken away. Now imagine you got two warnings, and were only ticketed for the one violation. But then your license gets taken away anyway because they held those warnings against you.

3) All this appeals nonsense: so much noise. You'd think someone's life hung in the balance. How about a little perspective? I've read novels shorter than this thread.

Then don't have an appeal system. The issue is that we do have one, and it doesn't quite work. Or more accurately, we have no way of knowing whether it is or it isn't.

[Barringtonia]

For the overlapping stickies, I agree. As for the second, the transgressions bit I can also get behind for the most part. It's the little clarity or outline part that I'm not sure what you guys mean.

Leaving behind the whole appeal process, I'm really wondering if you could give us an example of a rule that is not clear and how you would fix it.

Apologies for my phrasing, it's the link between a transgression and the consequence - not the rule itself as such, unless anyone has something specific.

[Neo Art]

Leaving behind the whole appeal process, I'm really wondering if you could give us an example of a rule that is not clear and how you would fix it.

A tiny sampling, since I'm running late to work:

Rules Lawyers: We don't like rules lawyering. We've said this before. If someone looks like they're trying to use (or, more specifically, abuse) the above guidelines in bad faith, then an official warning will be issued against them. "But you said this was okay!" "Yes, we did say it was okay. Then you went and tried to use that to bait another player." "I wasn't trying to bait him/her!" "We don't believe you." "But it's true!" "Tough noogies. You are officially warned."

This is ugly. Is rules lawyering against the rules, in and of itself? Or is the conduct? Can I be warned for "rules lawyering" or is rules lawyering just trying to get away with something? What is this hypothetical player being warned for? What's the purpose and why is this here? Fixing it?

"Many rules, unless otherwise noted, do not restrict posting certain content, but rather posting with certain intent. No ruling is meant to be read as banning, or allowing, any word or phrase in all circumstances. The same actions that were deemed not a rules violation in one instance may be considered a violation in another if the intent behind those actions is to commit a violation of the forum rules"

Wow, so much cleaner, huh?

To make life easier, here are some examples of what is and isn't acceptable. I expect there will be many borderline cases (there always are), but it's a simple principle. If a flag celebrates death, slavery, violence, or other not-nice things against real people, that's malicious, and will have the primary effect of offending.

Acceptable or Not? A Rough Guide

* A swastika: not acceptable (Yes, it was used by Buddhists in the third Century, etc, etc, but that's not what it represents now. To the vast majority of people, the swastika represents the Holocaust. A nation with a swastika appears to be endorsing that event; that's malicious and has the primary effect of offending.)
* A swastika with little flowers and happy faces, on a nation called "The Friendly Nazis": fine
* A swastika with little flowers and happy faces, on a nation called "The Friendly Nazis" that has the slogan: "We kill Jews with kindness": not fine
* A flag of Hitler looking all stern: no (Only one interpretation available there.)
* A flag of Hitler wearing an apron with fake boobs that says "Kiss the Cook": fine
* Actual boobs: no (I know, I know, who gets offended by breasts? But it's only fun to post them because it's naughty, and that's why it's banned)
* The iron cross: my feeling is it's usually okay, because I don't think most people even recognize it. But if the nation also had a name, slogan, etc, that seemed to be glorifying Bad Things, then no
* That SS lightning slash thing: no
* Something that looks a lot like a swastika if you squint just right: mods would need to judge the intent. If it's just a blatant attempt to get around the swastika ban, then no. If it seems coincidental -- e.g. nothing else about the nation seems to endorse violence against real people -- then it's fine.
* A swastika and it's on a clearly pro-Nazi nation but honest it's just roleplaying: no. Sorry, you might be RPing but if that's not obvious to other people, then the primary effect of your flag will be to offend and upset, even though you don't intend it.
* The hammer and sickle: fine (Yes, I'm aware of the hundreds of millions of deaths. But when people look at the hammer and sickle, they think communism, not mass graves. If you can point me at a survey that shows otherwise, then we'll deem this one malicious, too. But until then, it's just a Soviet flag.)
* The Japanese flag, or the American one, or the British one, or... : fine (Most people don't primarily associate any of these with death or violence.)
* The Japanese flag on a nation with the slogan, "We bombed your grandparents": no

To make that point again: we don't ban particular patterns of colored pixels, we ban any content that is malicious in nature. The mods' job is to judge which is which, according to guidelines like this.

And because I know this is going to come up again: I realize that you can point out a bunch of different groups that committed terrible acts, and yet we're not banning their flags. That's because we're not banning the symbols of every group that scored a particular body count; we're prohibiting content that is malicious in nature and to most people will have the primary effect of offending. Not a few people, not just you, but most people. That's the criteria.

The forums permit relatively free speech on a range of issues, so, as the FAQ says, if you've got a political ax to grind, do it here, where people can argue back. Please don't put it in your flag when you know it will piss people off.

This isn't a rule, it's a short one act play. Want to fix it? fine:

"Flags containing an image of a swastika, or images derived from a swastika are banned. Flags containing human nudity are banned. Flags created with slogans or imagery the display of which is considered a violation of forum rules governing trolling, flaming, flamebaiting, obscenity, and/or the promotion of illegal activity are banned under the rules governing that conduct.

Flags found in violation of forum rules will be removed, without warning on first incident. Future incidents of flag policy violation will be a level one violation"

Look...5 lines. And I don't think I left out anything.

[Barringtonia]

"Many rules, unless otherwise noted, do not restrict posting certain content, but rather posting with certain intent. No ruling is meant to be read as banning, or allowing, any word or phrase in all circumstances. The same actions that were deemed not a rules violation in one instance may be considered a violation in another if the intent behind those actions is to commit a violation of the forum rules"

Abide by the spirit of the law not the letter

I propose Haiku rules.

[Muravyets]

Again though, if moderators are getting this heated over the mere implication that something MIGHT be wrong with their process

That's not why anyone is becoming heated. Note that both this thread and previous examples similar to it started off with mods and players amicably discussing (for a little over two pages) suggestions for improving the process: suggesting acceptance of flaws therein.

Why do the threads wind up like this, then?

I'd say it's a riddle for the ages, but really, more or less the same things happen every time.

Considering that, if you read the thread, you will see that the precise moment when the mood shifted was when you and Katganistan came into the thread and began insisting that moderation already does everything that has been suggested, when it is obvious that you do not, and even making comments that were indirectly insulting and hostile to the players making the suggestions, as well as demanding justifications and answers that had already been posted several times (indicating that you had not read the thread before coming in to dismiss its contents), I'd say it's not really that much of a riddle.

If you want to know why conversations go wrong, all you have to do is read who said what to whom, when. That usually clears it up. TBN gave us an example of that in the previous thread.

Yes, I'm sure many of you do what you do because you think it's best. Have you considered you might be wrong?

Frequently. I tend to see the process as less important than the results, though.

This thread is an indicator that your approach may not the optimal one. Sometimes a flawed process is not able to produce good results, not consistently enough to be trusted at least.

[Muravyets]

I think the issue is twofold:

1. Overall the information is badly structured and all over the place leading to multiple, overlapping stickies
2. There is little clarity or outline to the rules and the consequences of transgressing them

The second is very much up to consideration but was outlined in NAs original post.

For the overlapping stickies, I agree. As for the second, the transgressions bit I can also get behind for the most part. It's the little clarity or outline part that I'm not sure what you guys mean.

Leaving behind the whole appeal process, I'm really wondering if you could give us an example of a rule that is not clear and how you would fix it.

As I said earlier, I can -- I mean I know how to, it's part of my work -- highlight the entire OSRS to show all unclear language that should be addressed. If you want, I can suggest rewrites. That will take a couple of days though. But if I am asked to for the purposes of this discussion, I will do it.

However, I will not volunteer specifics because of things that admin has said to me publicly that indicate that my input in this forum is not welcome. In fact, I have been considering myself to be pushing the envelope by being in this thread at all. So I won't do it unless someone in moderation asks me to, specifically.

[Neo Art]

"Many rules, unless otherwise noted, do not restrict posting certain content, but rather posting with certain intent. No ruling is meant to be read as banning, or allowing, any word or phrase in all circumstances. The same actions that were deemed not a rules violation in one instance may be considered a violation in another if the intent behind those actions is to commit a violation of the forum rules"

Abide by the spirit of the law not the letter

I propose Haiku rules.

Not at all. The letter of the law is that intent matters. Not specific conduct.

I propose Calvin ball.

[Laerod]

4. Appeals change - frankly I see this going nowhere but perhaps a clear format for how rulings are handed down. i.e.

From what I've been gathering, the biggest gripes with the appeals process have been that it is A) not transparent enough, and B) grant the moderator who's decision is being appealed unequal access to the reviewing moderators. And the biggest part of it is the combination of the two and the way this undermines trust. But there don't seem to be any real suggestions for changing it. I shall try:

A More Public Appeals Process

The big issue that needs tackling is putting the player making the appeal on similar footing as the moderator who's decision is being called in question. The secondary part is ensuring that it is public. The current system is sorta-kinda-but-not-really. De jure, we are supposed to send a GHR. These are not public and thus lack transparency. De facto a lot of appeals are made in the Moderation Forum in the thread where the original offence was reported. This would be a more public means of doing it.

So here's the suggestion: Make it official that appeals are posted on the forum (which doesn't mean that GHRs cannot be used, but more on that below). Now the initial problem I can see with this is the clutter it could cause in Moderation, so perhaps a seperate Appeals forum might be in order. Might not be, I'm just tossing it out there. But this is how it would function:

• The player files an appeal in the appropriate sub-forum.
• The moderator(s) that made the original decision may explain their decision in the thread.
• The reviewing moderators post their decision in the thread.

This would grant players some equal access to the reviewers and addresses the issue of transparency. Getting rid of the sekrit modchat isn't feasible, nor do I imagine it would really change anything on the issue of trust-building. Mods can still contact each other privately, but with this measure it would be possible to make the appeals process more transparent. Ergo, this would be the only place that the moderator who's decision is under review would be allowed to defend their decision, in a manner that the player would be able to see.

Regarding the posting of the appeal decision, I can see where both the secret deliberation and transparency are coming from. A lot of people have been arguing how the site should be governed from the perspective of (American) law, where equal access and dissenting opinions aren't unheard of. On the other hand, this site isn't a court of law, and the law isn't the only rule-enforcing body there is. I used to work with kids in a youth center, and as a team, we were required to form a united front against rule violations even if we personally disagreed. This was to maintain the integrity and authority of the team in the face of essentially immature beings. And while it has been pointed out that NS is full of well-educated individuals, let's not forget that it is perhaps more abundant in immaturity as well. I wouldn't go out and claim either approach is inherently better, but one may be more suited for the needs of the site and the community than the other. So what that means regarding posting of the decision, here's some suggestions how that could happen:

• Once a consensus is reached, that decision is posted in the appropriate thread. There is no public dissent, moderation forms a united stance so there is no ambiguity.
• The general consensus is posted, but a dissenting opinion, if there was one, is posted as well.
• The reviewing mods post their vote and explain their decision. The voting is thus completely public and transparent.

I personally wouldn't have much of an issue with any of these so long as it was consistent.

Now, regarding GHRs: I wouldn't want to get rid of using GHRs as a means to appeal. Some people don't want to make their appeals public and certainly should have a right to a private appeal. However, one would need to be aware that a private appeal does not afford the transparency present in posting a forum appeal.

So that's my humble musings on how one might be able to alter the appeals process.

*bit of snipping because I've got a sick kid*
I would happily help to edit/simplify the rules with help, all subject to moderator involvement, overview and acceptance. Perhaps a Wikirules site can be made for collaboration help.

I'm sorry if someone has brought this up, I might have missed it, but has anyone posted a rule that they think is vague or too dense or whatnot and then what they think it should be?

I've asked this before and, to the best of my knowledge, no one has posted such.

You fill my heart with sadness ='(

2. Re-writting the rules: A few players have brought this up and, after spending such an enjoyable time re-aranging them, yes, they are a little thick. Probably because they evolved with the site. However, what would be very helpful for us is to see examples of rules that YOU think are unclear and what you think would be better. In other words, it's one thing to tell us to please re-write the rules, but we're the ones who wrote them in the first place. So I hope you can see why we're a little unsure just what kind of clarification you'd like to see.

The difference between trollbaiting, flamebaiting, and trolling has always been a bit blurry to me. I've always felt that one category is a bit superfluous and could easily be consolidated in one of the other two to avoid confusion. I mean, flamebaiting is already "in the same context of trolling but with flamebaiting it's just the one person," so it really comes across as the same rule violation to me.

[Snafturi]

Well basically the way it works is that the ruling itself is basically the first mod's 'vote,' and if an appeal is filed he doesn't get a second. When an appeal comes up, the mod could choose to reverse himself, but this doesn't usually happen. The mod who ruled might still be active in the subsequent discussion--he's allowed to defend/explain the ruling but he doesn't get a second vote. In that case, a lot of what was in the final ruling was actually lifted straight from either discussion in M/A or my own emails to ze Boss.

EDIT: So yeah, I guess the ruling mod(s) has a voice, but if others want to take the conversation elsewhere, they always can. Generally mods are only contacted privately en masse when we're looking at firing someone, so it seems to me that part of the problem here seems that my/our(?) ideas on how often mods should be sat out of the conversation vary from yours in both frequency and purpose.

When it comes to appeals, we sometimes want to know what the ruling mod was thinking and/or what led to the decision. If we think of a NS moderation appeal along (roughly!) the same lines as a proper legal one, it becomes pretty silly to suggest that the 'defendant' (in this case the ruling mod) can't defend himself. But in the end consensus, the original ruling mod's decision stands or fails on its own based on the consensus of the other mods.

As for the other ideas, we'll need more time to look over them all but nothing really jumps out at me at present. And yes, I will continue to lobby for TG'd warnings. (There was actually a general amnesty granted a while back for posting past bans, since banned users (obviously) couldn't read the post wherein their ban was announced, and the page that displayed when you tried to load the forum didn't actually explain that the account was banned. I don't think it was publicized particularly well, but we fixed the ban display page pretty quickly.)

The problem essentially stems from our mods having two different levels of access. As it stands right now, a GM could Voice of Mod a player following a FM's warning, but that would be a fairly tedious process in which we have no particular interest. I've actually toyed with suggesting that we do away with FMs vs GMs (thus making us all GMs), but it makes more sense to me to just have a warning-by-TG system that could be triggered by FMs. I always thought our forumside warning notification system was a little inefficient.

The ruling mod having a voice in the process of appeal on his/her own ruling is the exact problem. The mod who made the ruling should not be allowed to defend his/her argument to the appeal mods, if the appealing player is not also allowed to present their counter argument to the appealing mods in the same discussion.

Rather, the appeal mods should only judge the record of what happened at the time. This means that when a mod makes a ruling, their post should include the following: The ruling and/or penalty being assessed against the player, a link to the exact rule(s) the player violated, a paragraph or so on the mod's reasoning of why that action violated that rule and why they got that particular penalty. Many mods already do that or close to it. All mods should do it.

Then if the player appeals the ruling, the mods who review the appeal should look ONLY at the record of the event, and the argument of the ruling mod presented at the time of the ruling. The ruling mod should not be allowed to benefit from the extra time to think up plausible justifications for his/her ruling - not if the player doesn't get the same advantage. It's simply that other moderators should be able to look at the original posts that were ruled on and either reach the same conclusion and uphold the ruling, or reach a different conclusion and amend or overturn the ruling.

Considering that it has been stated many, many times by moderators that great weight and trust is given to the judgment of moderators, it seems the least the mod team could do for fairness would be not to give their team mates yet another advantage over players in defending disputed rulings.

Sorry, I know this was pages back, but I think I have a comment worthwhile on this. What if, the mod in question can explain himself/herself, but must do so in the open forum. I see no problem with a mod in an open thread further elaborating on why they made their ruling. If anything, it would help with understanding why the mod made the decision s/he made, leading to less complaints about mod bias, ect.

On a separate note, something I've noticed that has worked in another community is having a "Mod Cave" public and a "Mod Cave" private. I totally see why you sometimes have to discuss things behind the scenes, but things like the proposed improvements to General could totally be accessible. What would make the "Mod Cave" public board different from Moderation is that non-moderators can't post. So, you all get to have your say without interjections that can drive you off topic, while those that are interested can take a peek at what's going on. In the community in question, sometimes things are talked about that 99% of us could care less about, sometimes we see a moderator is in error, and sometimes we benefit from what we read. When we see a moderator in error, we don't automatically go, "OMG, this person is an ass/idiot/whatever." On the contrary, it helps erase that line between us. Point in fact, we don't see the mods as adversaries, we don't see their rulings as vendettas. We realize mods are human, and we'd rather see a thoughtful discussion on a difficult ruling (even if we disagree with some points of view expressed) versus not knowing anything that goes on behind the scenes. And in the community I'm talking about is far larger than NS, and it's objectively worse to have your account deleted in the community versus here.*

I also don't see why all moderation rulings/ discussion needs to be private. If both parties concerned don't mind (and there's no other extenuating circumstances) the proceedings being public, then what's the point in hiding them?

Finally, is there a way to code in a system where everyone can see their warnings? I don't know from a coding perspective if that's more or less difficult than sending TGs, but I've never liked the idea that people can't see their record. Yes, people will still complain about rulings they find unfair, but that happens anyway. And perhaps it might better shape behavior for the better if a poster could look at their own warning history. And when punishments escalate, they can clearly see why that happened, even if they disagree with the warnings they've received.

*Yes, I'm being vague about the community I'm talking about, but it's because there's a far smaller degree of anonymity on that community than here. Call me paranoid, but I like to remain anonymous online as much as possible. That said, if anyone does want further details, I'd be more than happy to provide those in private.

[Sarzonia]

My apologies because I'm in a state which does not allow diplomacy, but what fucking planet do you live on where that shit is a good idea?

If a topic is considered trolling or flaming, that's one thing. However, what authority on this green Earth gives YOU the bloody right to decide what sort of topics should be considered "awful"?

If you're not in a state that allows at least basic civility, it's better to hold off on posting until you are. This is completely unhelpful to the discussion and the way you present your opinion is done in such a way as to antagonize your opponent instead of debate the merits (or lack thereof) in someone else's point.

While I'm not handing out any warnings at this point in time, this is a reminder to keep it civil and on topic.

Fair enough. Here goes.

Allowing users to "shame" others who start "awful" topics sets a precedent that has no place on this forum based on the rule set as it exists now. Number one, who gets to decide what topics are "awful"? Awful for you might be fine for me, or vice versa. Doesn't mean I get to then berate you in an effort to "shame" you for starting a topic that was awful in my opinion.

Number two, the rule set as we have it now is specific against any sort of flaming or flamebaiting. Granted, some things are enforced more than I'd like or less than I think is productive, but TBR's proposal heads in a direction that shouldn't even be given the slightest bit of weight.

Yes, there are some things I think Moderation needs to be less stringent upon. However, the biggest one is one that seems to have been ruled upon by Max himself. Thus, the chances of that changing are the same as the chances that I'd ever be interested in a woman for more than friendship: None. TBR's proposal is definitely not on that list.

[Czardas]

Considering that, if you read the thread, you will see that the precise moment when the mood shifted was when you and Katganistan came into the thread and began insisting that moderation already does everything that has been suggested, when it is obvious that you do not, and even making comments that were indirectly insulting and hostile to the players making the suggestions, as well as demanding justifications and answers that had already been posted several times (indicating that you had not read the thread before coming in to dismiss its contents), I'd say it's not really that much of a riddle.

If you want to know why conversations go wrong, all you have to do is read who said what to whom, when.

I've been doing so all along, in fact. I've never been dismissive or actively hostile, nor resorted to personal attacks, nor repeatedly demanded answers that had already been posted. If you could point to some examples of this happening, please do.

Frequently. I tend to see the process as less important than the results, though.

This thread is an indicator that your approach may not the optimal one. Sometimes a flawed process is not able to produce good results, not consistently enough to be trusted at least.

Quite possible, yes. There have been a number of legitimately helpful suggestions and issues raised, and some changes are already under way (alterations to the OSRS for instance).

However, I will not volunteer specifics because of things that admin has said to me publicly that indicate that my input in this forum is not welcome. In fact, I have been considering myself to be pushing the envelope by being in this thread at all.

This explains a lot, actually.

From what I've been gathering, the biggest gripes with the appeals process have been that it is A) not transparent enough, and B) grant the moderator who's decision is being appealed unequal access to the reviewing moderators. And the biggest part of it is the combination of the two and the way this undermines trust. But there don't seem to be any real suggestions for changing it.

There have been suggestions for changing it (designating some mods as "appeal mods" and ensuring that they have no contact with regular mods), but they have not seemed practicable.

• The player files an appeal in the appropriate sub-forum.
• The moderator(s) that made the original decision may explain their decision in the thread.
• The reviewing moderators post their decision in the thread.

The only real difference from the current system here (an appeals forum doesn't seem necessary since an appellant using the forum usually posts their appeal in the thread where the alleged violation was reported) is that the original decision is to be explained in public, if I'm correct.

• Once a consensus is reached, that decision is posted in the appropriate thread. There is no public dissent, moderation forms a united stance so there is no ambiguity.
• The general consensus is posted, but a dissenting opinion, if there was one, is posted as well.
• The reviewing mods post their vote and explain their decision. The voting is thus completely public and transparent.

I still like the idea of "The panel of uninvolved mods reviewing the decision consisted of 5 mods. Three mods voted in favour, one voted against, one abstained." It's been argued that there are issues with naming the involved mods specifically, though (something along the lines of "this mod often disagrees with the others, therefore we should appeal every single decision they make in the hope of avoiding punishment"). Moreover, consider how often real-world judges will be accused of "judicial activism" when making any kind of ruling whatsoever on a controversial issue. I think this may, if anything, increase the perception of bias. That said, it's worth seeing how the others interpret it.

The difference between trollbaiting, flamebaiting, and trolling has always been a bit blurry to me. I've always felt that one category is a bit superfluous and could easily be consolidated in one of the other two to avoid confusion. I mean, flamebaiting is already "in the same context of trolling but with flamebaiting it's just the one person," so it really comes across as the same rule violation to me.

Glancing at the original guidelines (well before the OSRS came along) it seems that initially all of those offenses were under the umbrella of "flamebait." Only later were they separated out.

Generally, flamebait and all its variations has long been the most problematic offense on the book, largely because of the subjectivity involved -- I've always tried to interpret it as "posts made with the intent to provoke flaming or derail threads" but it doesn't seem we're always consistent about it. It's obvious that this offense won't be removed, but some clarification in the rules is needed.

[Muravyets]

Considering that, if you read the thread, you will see that the precise moment when the mood shifted was when you and Katganistan came into the thread and began insisting that moderation already does everything that has been suggested, when it is obvious that you do not, and even making comments that were indirectly insulting and hostile to the players making the suggestions, as well as demanding justifications and answers that had already been posted several times (indicating that you had not read the thread before coming in to dismiss its contents), I'd say it's not really that much of a riddle.

If you want to know why conversations go wrong, all you have to do is read who said what to whom, when.

I've been doing so all along, in fact. I've never been dismissive or actively hostile, nor resorted to personal attacks, nor repeatedly demanded answers that had already been posted. If you could point to some examples of this happening, please do.

First, I was talking about two people, not just one, so not everything I listed as the combined reactions that shifted the mood away from the positive was done by you specifically.

Second, I already did respond to and thus indicate specifics, in earlier posts responding to you and Katganistan. As this thread is short, I refer you back to the conversation.

This thread is an indicator that your approach may not the optimal one. Sometimes a flawed process is not able to produce good results, not consistently enough to be trusted at least.

Quite possible, yes. There have been a number of legitimately helpful suggestions and issues raised, and some changes are already under way (alterations to the OSRS for instance).

However, I will not volunteer specifics because of things that admin has said to me publicly that indicate that my input in this forum is not welcome. In fact, I have been considering myself to be pushing the envelope by being in this thread at all.

This explains a lot, actually.

It certainly does, particularly as an object example of how highly placed authorities in the site publicly denigrating a person due to personal dislike and holding said person up as an example of general, free-form wrongness with the community tends to inhibit the willingness of said person to go the extra mile for your project, even though they'd really like to because despite a few people behaving that way, they really do think the project is good and worth participating in.

If you delete the user name from my earlier posts and read only the words on the screen without reference to who they came from, you should see that a sincere and unbiased attempt was made to offer constructive, practical suggestions for specific things that could be tried to achieve the goals of greater openness and clarity in the moderation system. Some of those suggestions might be useful, others not, but the point is that, despite whatever negative feelings I may see between me and specific other individuals in NS, I am still committed to supporting and aiding NS itself because I like it.

However, I do not believe that my actual supportive actions will make any difference. I believe that, no matter what I do, I will be denigrated because some people find me unlikeable, and I fear -- and this is purely an emotional fear, but it is triggered by my experiences here -- that the simple fact that some of these suggestions come from me and certain other players will be enough to have some people on the mod/admin side reject them. That level of negative expectation is the result of being on the receiving end of the opaque and uncommunicative and inconsistent front that moderation and admin present, where individual responses to individual personalities come out much louder and clearer than any sense of an actual management system.

I would like very much to have that perception changed.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

If that our most common and pressing concern, this thread would have been locked a long time ago.

There are already grumbles that this thread is turning from a forward moving conversation of improvements to be made to the rules moderators must follow to a circular kvetching at the mods for doing what's expected of them by the OWNER.

I support some of these changes, but don't think for one second that I'm not going to discuss BOTH the potential risks AND rewards of doing so and don't think that the decision to make those changes is mine. Or yours.

When I came onto this thread, some of you(mods included) were dug in and hunkered down and not to blow my own horn, but I think I did a good job of getting this conversation moving forward again. But now you and Murayvets are hunkering down again and I won't do the same. You've explained your perspective, I've explained mine. I've done my best to give you a glimpse behind the curtain to help figure out what can and should change and what will be resisted because many of us believe very strongly that some of what we do is for a very good reason. This might come as a shock to you after all the discussions and debates on NSG, but I don't feel the need to agree with you or convince you not do I feel the need to be convinced.

Surely you must remember even back when I wasn't a mod that I didn't work that way. It's enough for me to give and then thoroughly explain my position. I have nothing to win by being right and nothing to lose by being wrong. I'm okay with discord. Hell, I prefer it. More than once I've defended threads like this because it gives players a chance to offer perspective, solution or at least a chance to vent. As long as this thread moves forward, I'll continue to defend it. But if it turns into a round and round circle of kvetching and accusations, I'll lock it myself.

This phrase worries me. Are you saying there are certain marching orders from Max that conflict with some of what we are suggesting and/or with a fair, just, or transparent process? If not, what are you referring to and why are you bringing it up?

I don't mean to sound paranoid, but, given some of [violet]'s pronouncements from on high, I'm starting to think you are right that we are pissing in the wind because NS Moderation is simply not going to change because higher powers like it the way it is.

Well let me put it this way; I'm not the one that has to be convinced. But convincing me couldn't hurt. Some of what was mentioned here I'd back. Some others I have misgivings about, such as intermoderator discussions being public) but could get behind if the ramifications are well understood in advance. It isn't so much that NS Moderation won't change because a higher power likes it the way it is, it's that NS Moderation isn't going to change unless that higher power is convinced these changes are for the better.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

I've done my best to give you a glimpse behind the curtain t

I will start by saying that I have not read the entire thread, but this caught my eye.

This...bothers me. A lot. Why? Because it is not only acknowledging that there IS a curtain, but that it takes great effort and dozens of posts just to grant us players a "glimpse" behind it.

You guys are easily bothered.

I'm not a politician, you know.