Arguments for moderation policy reform

[The Cat-Tribe]

*snip*

Thank you for trying to focus on concrete change and not venting from various factions.

[The Cat-Tribe]

...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.

1. I totally agree no form of Mod shopping should be allowed. But, I sincerely ask what a poster is to do when a Mod has rather openly declared his or her hostility towards a poster? (I'm not actually that fond of the judicial analogy, but there are circumstances when asking one Mod not to be involved in an appeal could be justified.)

2. This may suprise some, but I'm not in favor of revealing (however anonymously) how "close" the Mod vote was on an appeal. I don't see what purpose this will serve. It will tend to undermine the authority of "close vote" decisions. It will give those who lose an appeal something further to cling to and fester on. As much as the "united front of Moderation" sometimes annoys me, it has its justifications.

3. *sigh* Several have been mentioned, but for an easy layup, I'll point to the OSRS section on Appeals -- which it is widely acknowledge simply isn't followed in practive AND different Mods have been known to chide players for "violating" it -- even when they follow it to the letter!

[Muravyets]

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.


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.

1. I totally agree no form of Mod shopping should be allowed. But, I sincerely ask what a poster is to do when a Mod has rather openly declared his or her hostility towards a poster? (I'm not actually that fond of the judicial analogy, but there are circumstances when asking one Mod not to be involved in an appeal could be justified.)

2. This may suprise some, but I'm not in favor of revealing (however anonymously) how "close" the Mod vote was on an appeal. I don't see what purpose this will serve. It will tend to undermine the authority of "close vote" decisions. It will give those who lose an appeal something further to cling to and fester on. As much as the "united front of Moderation" sometimes annoys me, it has its justifications.

3. *sigh* Several have been mentioned, but for an easy layup, I'll point to the OSRS section on Appeals -- which it is widely acknowledge simply isn't followed in practive AND different Mods have been known to chide players for "violating" it -- even when they follow it to the letter!

I'd like to add an example and question to this:

The lack of getting along between me and Melkor has been mentioned. Referring to that, when it became clear that we were unlikely to be able to have conversations without getting into fights, I asked him for an agreement that would have us basically ignoring each other for all purposes OTHER THAN moderation. This was because I knew perfectly well that I couldn't "mod-shop." A mod is a mod and if a I, as a player, legitimately got drawn into a moderation matter that he had "caught," then I could not object to him moderating just because I didn't get along with him personally. I would have to have a good reason to dispute any ruling he might give on me, on the merits of the ruling itself.

When it happened, a long while later, that he did make a ruling I objected to, I pointed to aspects of that ruling itself for why I objected, and cited our negative history as a back-up to that.

At that time, I asked for a second opinion by a moderator other than Melkor and one other mod, both of whom I believed would be excessively biased. But that was an appeal situation.

It is clear to me that it would be mod-shopping to demand that a particular mod recuse themselves from ever ruling on a player due to claimed bias, or to persistently file appeals over and over in the hope of getting a different answer from a different mod eventually.

But is it mod-shopping if one is appealing an existing ruling on the grounds that it is biased, and at that time, inform the mod team of personal problems with other mods that might raise an additional bias issue?

[Laerod]

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.

Essentially, yes. It's about making the consultation by the reviewing mods of the player's and original ruling mod's argumentation public and to set it on equal footing. Also about writing this down in the rules and thereby encouraging it. The idea of a separate forum is based on my personal dislike for clutter in Moderation and also to give it a certain formality. Also I have no idea of how many appeals happen via GHR compared to via the forum, and I can't predict if there will be an influx should this be implemented. Not that I'm desperately in favor of such a forum, but these were the reasons why I thought it might be useful.

• 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.

I'm really only tossing out the first concepts that came to mind. I'm also not really griping about the appeals process myself, but the argument has gotten circular so I felt like contributing some suggestion on how to change it that could be built upon, shot down, or whatever.

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.

Maybe call the offense "Trolling and baiting" then? "Posts with the intent to get a rise out of people" is how I've always interpreted it. The severity or type of that (trollbaiting, flamebaiting, or trolling) would obviously still be part of judging on the severity of the punishment, so any inherent differences in actionability would still be around.

[Melkor Unchained]

I suspect this discussion is nearing its term. We are (believe it or not) working on implementing some of the more sound suggestions, but the apparent preference of dictation over discussion by some people is a little off-putting. However, I do want to address a couple things I read yesterday while I was at work. I was tempted to fire off a quick post last night, but they tend to frown on cell phone use where I work.

I mentioned a few pages back that some of the proposed changes rubbed me the wrong way on account of their being (or at least implying the creation of) a vehicle to punish mods who make rulings that get overturned. TCT, while I appreciate the relatively cordial tone our exchange has hitherto enjoyed, it will be difficult to maintain if what I'm saying is being (intentionally?) distorted. I did not say that appeals were a form of punishment, I said that some of the proposed changes would turn them into that. I get a distinct "overturning the ruling is not enough" vibe from many of the proposed changes to the appeals process. The idea that we should only entertain an argument/defense from the player and not the mod on appeals is absurd and ain't gonna happen.

I also don't know where people are getting the idea that they don't have secure, private access to mods: this is the information age for Christ's sake. You can always TG/email a mod and/or contact them in IRC. You can file GHRs or mass-email us if you want everyone to see it. The only things we have that players don't is a mod/admin forum and an IRC channel, both of which are administrative necessities anyway. This goes hand-in-hand with my earlier remarks about sitting mods from decisions: it can and does happen, but won't for every single appeal. Just because we have M/A and IRC doesn't mean that 100% of mod-to-mod discourse needs to occur there. If one or more of us thinks another mod is way off base, we can always TG/email/PM each other also. It has happened before and will happen again. The point is, mods are already punished for bad rulings when we feel they need to be. I overturned another mod twice in seven days last year and even contacted someone in private to see if we should ask said mod to sit for a little while. It does happen, although I suspect not as often as some folks in this thread apparently want it to.

I'm sorry if any (or indeed all) of the above came off as coarse or unpolished, but this good cop/bad cop/angsty rage cop act is wearing a little thin with me. The more I read, the more it seems to me as if certain folks are making demands rather than suggestions, and given that approach it would be difficult for us to enact the proposed changes, even if we agreed with all of them. We certainly don't want to encourage the view that you can change the site's rules simply by being loud and/or indignant enough.

[Fartsniffage]

*snip because there are already too many damn long quotes in this thread*

As I was reading through all of this I was think of posting the same suggestion regarding the open statements from mod and warned/deleted/DOSed. The only things I would like to add are a suggestion that it is made clear in the rules that an appeal will probably involve all you dirty laundry becoming public knowledge as a moderator may have made their decision or assigned punishment based partly on information held in their secret vault.

Also some way of DOS people to actually appeal a ruling would need to be devised.

So far as the opinions from the mods goes, I think that it would be quite difficult to have any more information than number for and against as those of us who've been knocking around for a bit would probably be able ID them from the style of writing.

[Melkor Unchained]

Essentially, yes. It's about making the consultation by the reviewing mods of the player's and original ruling mod's argumentation public and to set it on equal footing. Also about writing this down in the rules and thereby encouraging it. The idea of a separate forum is based on my personal dislike for clutter in Moderation and also to give it a certain formality. Also I have no idea of how many appeals happen via GHR compared to via the forum, and I can't predict if there will be an influx should this be implemented. Not that I'm desperately in favor of such a forum, but these were the reasons why I thought it might be useful/

Most appeals occur via GHR. Forum appeals and Game appeals are a little different (like so many other things) on account of the different levels of access among mods. Forum mods obviously can't see GHRs, so in most cases appeals that take place there are decided by GMs. If it's brought up in M/A or IRC though, everyone's input is pretty much equal (except Max, who takes the entire proverbial pie) and the issue is decided by consensus.

As far as transparency in appeals, we prefer to avoid that to discourage players from taking advantage of disagreements between mods, or "ganging up" on unpopular ones, and since both of these happen sometimes already the feeling seems to be that full public disclosure would lend itself to more headaches. One thing we came up with last night and might use was the idea of voting in a locked poll in M/A and then moving it to Moderation once quorum is achieved. Users wouldn't be able to see who voted for what, but it would still convey the weight of consensus.

[Fartsniffage]

Most appeals occur via GHR. Forum appeals and Game appeals are a little different (like so many other things) on account of the different levels of access among mods. Forum mods obviously can't see GHRs, so in most cases appeals that take place there are decided by GMs. If it's brought up in M/A or IRC though, everyone's input is pretty much equal (except Max, who takes the entire proverbial pie) and the issue is decided by consensus.

As far as transparency in appeals, we prefer to avoid that to discourage players from taking advantage of disagreements between mods, or "ganging up" on unpopular ones, and since both of these happen sometimes already the feeling seems to be that full public disclosure would lend itself to more headaches. One thing we came up with last night and might use was the idea of voting in a locked poll in M/A and then moving it to Moderation once quorum is achieved. Users wouldn't be able to see who voted for what, but it would still convey the weight of consensus.

I think the major issue most people have brought up here with the appeals process is the perception of home-field advantage to the initial mod in presenting their reasoning for the ruling. If you said that the mod was just asked to make a statement in response to the appeal then perhaps this would be more acceptable but I doubt that's the case, probably it's more like a discussion in the moderation forum or over iRC. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

If that part of the appeal were conducted in a public place and then the debate over the outcome were conducted in a private setting then I don't think anyone could complain about a lack of transparency. Of course people would have to accept the word of the moderation team that the initial mod wasn't involved any further than that but if we're in a situation where people don't trust that then we're in such a bad situation that I don't think any changes to processes can improve things.

[Melkor Unchained]

Most appeals occur via GHR. Forum appeals and Game appeals are a little different (like so many other things) on account of the different levels of access among mods. Forum mods obviously can't see GHRs, so in most cases appeals that take place there are decided by GMs. If it's brought up in M/A or IRC though, everyone's input is pretty much equal (except Max, who takes the entire proverbial pie) and the issue is decided by consensus.

As far as transparency in appeals, we prefer to avoid that to discourage players from taking advantage of disagreements between mods, or "ganging up" on unpopular ones, and since both of these happen sometimes already the feeling seems to be that full public disclosure would lend itself to more headaches. One thing we came up with last night and might use was the idea of voting in a locked poll in M/A and then moving it to Moderation once quorum is achieved. Users wouldn't be able to see who voted for what, but it would still convey the weight of consensus.

I think the major issue most people have brought up here with the appeals process is the perception of home-field advantage to the initial mod in presenting their reasoning for the ruling. If you said that the mod was just asked to make a statement in response to the appeal then perhaps this would be more acceptable but I doubt that's the case, probably it's more like a discussion in the moderation forum or over iRC. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

If that part of the appeal were conducted in a public place and then the debate over the outcome were conducted in a private setting then I don't think anyone could complain about a lack of transparency. Of course people would have to accept the word of the moderation team that the initial mod wasn't involved any further than that but if we're in a situation where people don't trust that then we're in such a bad situation that I don't think any changes to processes can improve things.

When a mod does something we're not sure about, one of the first questions we might ask is "why did you do it?" and I don't see how that's not fair. Often, someone wasn't on when the call was made. There might have been talk about it in IRC that the absentee mods weren't in on, or what have you. Our first impulse is to gather as much information as possible, from both the player and the mod in question. We're not going to say "hey you, shut your mouth!" if the mod in question presents that information. Yes the actual decision will likely always occur in private, but many of us are quite literally always on IRC and I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of people who have contacted me about appeals. None of them are participating in this discussion. A player could, if s/he wanted, always PM a mod or ask him/her to join a channel. If a clearer understanding of appeals and better contact with the moderators is truly the desire of any players, it is certainly well within their power.

[Laerod]

I think the major issue most people have brought up here with the appeals process is the perception of home-field advantage to the initial mod in presenting their reasoning for the ruling. If you said that the mod was just asked to make a statement in response to the appeal then perhaps this would be more acceptable but I doubt that's the case, probably it's more like a discussion in the moderation forum or over iRC. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

If that part of the appeal were conducted in a public place and then the debate over the outcome were conducted in a private setting then I don't think anyone could complain about a lack of transparency. Of course people would have to accept the word of the moderation team that the initial mod wasn't involved any further than that but if we're in a situation where people don't trust that then we're in such a bad situation that I don't think any changes to processes can improve things.

When a mod does something we're not sure about, the first question we always ask is "why did you do it?" and I don't see how that's not fair. Often, someone wasn't on when the call was made. There might have been talk about it in IRC that the absentee mods weren't in on, or what have you. Our first impulse is to gather as much information as possible, from both the player and the mod in question. We're not going to say "hey you, shut your mouth!" if the mod in question presents that information. Yes the actual decision will likely always occur in private, but many of us are quite literally always on IRC and I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of people who have contacted me about appeals. None of them (despite very recent appeals themselves in some cases) are participating in this discussion. A player could, if s/he wanted, always PM a mod or ask him/her to join a channel. If a clearer understanding of appeals and better contact with the moderators is truly the desire of certain players, it is certainly well within their power.

Surely the limited number of people that have made use of these is a sign that they are suboptimal? Not everyone has access to IRC and there is no guarantee that a TG will be read (as has been pointed out by a mod or two in this thread). That sort of makes the current system rather unreliable, not to mention whom would one TG in an appeal? Considering that the discussion is in private, we as players have no real way of figuring out who is involved. Posting it on the forum (which we obviously all have access to) would help grant some amount of certainty that one can make themselves heard.

[Melkor Unchained]

When a mod does something we're not sure about, the first question we always ask is "why did you do it?" and I don't see how that's not fair. Often, someone wasn't on when the call was made. There might have been talk about it in IRC that the absentee mods weren't in on, or what have you. Our first impulse is to gather as much information as possible, from both the player and the mod in question. We're not going to say "hey you, shut your mouth!" if the mod in question presents that information. Yes the actual decision will likely always occur in private, but many of us are quite literally always on IRC and I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of people who have contacted me about appeals. None of them (despite very recent appeals themselves in some cases) are participating in this discussion. A player could, if s/he wanted, always PM a mod or ask him/her to join a channel. If a clearer understanding of appeals and better contact with the moderators is truly the desire of certain players, it is certainly well within their power.

Surely the limited number of people that have made use of these is a sign that they are suboptimal? Not everyone has access to IRC and there is no guarantee that a TG will be read (as has been pointed out by a mod or two in this thread). That sort of makes the current system rather unreliable, not to mention whom would one TG in an appeal? Considering that the discussion is in private, we as players have no real way of figuring out who is involved. Posting it on the forum (which we obviously all have access to) would help grant some amount of certainty that one can make themselves heard.

Many of us ignore moderation related TGs but I don't think we all do. Most of the ones I get are simple gameside questions, but I don't tend to have conversations via TG in general because it's a little clunky for that. Our emails should be public knowledge and IRC can be run in a browser alongside NS itself, the only real limitation to that would be (likely employer-enforced) filters or firewalls or what have you and there isn't really anything we can do about that. Players don't have any way of figuring out who was involved with the final decision by design. Yes it's a defense mechanism, but that's sort of the point. I don't think m/any of us (not just myself) are particularly eager to install a system by which we revealed directly who votes for/against a particular user. There's a natural limit to the rage and drama that we're willing to endure for the sake of a volunteer position, and that would well exceed it!

[Sarkhaan]

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.

I was an English major...it's my job to rip apart what is said

If I have time before I head in to work, I'll try to get caught up in this thread. But, for the record, I agree with just about everything Neo Art, Mura, and Cat Tribes have said. This shouldn't be surprising...we've all been saying it since this issue first arose.

[Sarkhaan]

Surely the limited number of people that have made use of these is a sign that they are suboptimal? Not everyone has access to IRC and there is no guarantee that a TG will be read (as has been pointed out by a mod or two in this thread). That sort of makes the current system rather unreliable, not to mention whom would one TG in an appeal? Considering that the discussion is in private, we as players have no real way of figuring out who is involved. Posting it on the forum (which we obviously all have access to) would help grant some amount of certainty that one can make themselves heard.

Many of us ignore moderation related TGs but I don't think we all do. IRC can be run in a browser alongside NS itself, the only real limitation to that would be (likely employer-enforced) filters or firewalls or what have you and there isn't really anything we can do about that. Players don't have any way of figuring out who was involved with the final decision by design. Yes it's a defense mechanism, but that's sort of the point. I don't think many/any of us (not just me) are particularly eager to install a system by which we revealed directly who votes for/against a particular user.

So wait...you tell us to contact mods via TG, and then on the same page say "many of us ignore those"?

So why suggest it as a valid, viable means of communication with a mod?


I'm also not entirely sure what the issue with the players knowing how the mods voted should matter. If the decision is being made on the basis of solidly structured rules, and is being made with solid reasoning, it really doesn't matter at all that Kat voted against me but LG voted for me.

[Fartsniffage]

When a mod does something we're not sure about, one of the first questions we might ask is "why did you do it?" and I don't see how that's not fair. Often, someone wasn't on when the call was made. There might have been talk about it in IRC that the absentee mods weren't in on, or what have you.

I don't disagree that's fair, it's also quite sensible. What I don't understand is why that can't be done in a public forum.

Our first impulse is to gather as much information as possible, from both the player and the mod in question. We're not going to say "hey you, shut your mouth!" if the mod in question presents that information.

I wouldn't expect you to. But, again, why can't it be presented in a public forum?

Yes the actual decision will likely always occur in private, *snipped rest of sentence as I didn't want my response to be misinterpreted*

As it should be.

but many of us are quite literally always on IRC and I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of people who have contacted me about appeals. None of them are participating in this discussion. A player could, if s/he wanted, always PM a mod or ask him/her to join a channel. If a clearer understanding of appeals and better contact with the moderators is truly the desire of any players, it is certainly well within their power.

Why should the fact that people who've contacted you about an appeal via IRC aren't in this thread be relevant?

If I were to TG you about an appeal made by "insert random poster that isn't me" would you explain the reasoning behind the decision to me?

[Melkor Unchained]

Many of us ignore moderation related TGs but I don't think we all do. IRC can be run in a browser alongside NS itself, the only real limitation to that would be (likely employer-enforced) filters or firewalls or what have you and there isn't really anything we can do about that. Players don't have any way of figuring out who was involved with the final decision by design. Yes it's a defense mechanism, but that's sort of the point. I don't think many/any of us (not just me) are particularly eager to install a system by which we revealed directly who votes for/against a particular user.

So wait...you tell us to contact mods via TG, and then on the same page say "many of us ignore those"?

So why suggest it as a valid, viable means of communication with a mod?

I didn't tell people to contact mods via TG, I just used it as an inexplicably separated example of the various avenues of communication. Sending a TG probably isn't as reliable as IRC or email is, but that might just be because fewer *ahem* newer users are using those channels. Maybe I should have kept TGs off that list (I can't rightly say what proportion of them are ignored versus those that aren't, but I know I've brought mine up a few times) but you get the idea. Barring #modslair and M/A, players have just about as much access to the mods as other mods do. Being as I don't see us opening those to the public any time soon, I don't really see where we can go from here.

I'm also not entirely sure what the issue with the players knowing how the mods voted should matter. If the decision is being made on the basis of solidly structured rules, and is being made with solid reasoning, it really doesn't matter at all that Kat voted against me but LG voted for me.

You'd think that, but solid reasoning doesn't always dictate behavior in the internet world. It would create way more drama and rage than happy acceptance of solid reasoning that got you (well not you you, but you know what I mean!)warned.

[Melkor Unchained]

When a mod does something we're not sure about, one of the first questions we might ask is "why did you do it?" and I don't see how that's not fair. Often, someone wasn't on when the call was made. There might have been talk about it in IRC that the absentee mods weren't in on, or what have you.

I don't disagree that's fair, it's also quite sensible. What I don't understand is why that can't be done in a public forum.

Because we don't want players to take advantage of a disagreement between moderators. We're very touchy about being used as weapons and have rules in place to punish it: full disclosure would only encourage that. One of the only things I can see being viable right now is the idea of moving locked polls from M/A, although I wasn't clear on what cases they would be used.

Why should the fact that people who've contacted you about an appeal via IRC aren't in this thread be relevant?

I'm trying to point out that the people who are complaining the loudest about moderator transparency do not use the tools they already have. One of the things that frustrates us about this topic when it comes up is the simple fact that we're already way more transparent than pretty much any other web forum we've ever seen, and certainly much moreso than is strictly necessary for running the site. In terms of general policy I tend to lean more authoritarian; I even recently advocated a GHR-like forum moderation process, by which the only topics viewable in the Moderation forum would be those created by yourself.

If I were to TG you about an appeal made by "insert random poster that isn't me" would you explain the reasoning behind the decision to me?

If I knew anything about the ruling, I'd probably try. If it made me curious, I might ask about it. If I participated in the ruling, almost certainly. I don' t know about the other mods, but most of the "moderation TGs" that I usually ignore have more to do with basic FAQ or "how do you become a mod" type queries, which I grew tired of answering years ago.

I misread this, I thought you were asking about an appeal involving yourself. If it asked about someone else's appeal, I would probably ignore it unless it asked a really good question or raised a really good point. Gameside we don't prefer to talk about infractions with anyone other than the offender, and that preference bleeds over into forum work too.

[Vonners]

Well (as Melkor will testify) the mod cave thing does work...just did a test and had a pretty quick response from Sedgistan...

Yeah...I'm a great believer in testing me:)

[Fartsniffage]

Because we don't want players to take advantage of a disagreement between moderators. We're very touchy about being used as weapons and have rules in place to punish it: full disclosure would only encourage that. One of the only things I can see being viable right now is the idea of moving locked polls from M/A, although I wasn't clear on what cases they would be used.

I think we're talking at crossed purposes here. I'm not saying the deliberation process should be visible, just the fact finding.

I'm trying to point out that the people who are complaining the loudest about moderator transparency do not use the tools they already have. One of the things that frustrates us about this topic when it comes up is the simple fact that we're already way more transparent than pretty much any other web forum we've ever seen, and certainly much moreso than is strictly necessary for running the site. In terms of general policy I tend to lean more authoritarian; I even recently advocated a GHR-like forum moderation process, by which the only topics viewable in the Moderation forum would be those created by yourself.

I'm not sure a more authoritarian moderation policy would do much to improve mod/player relations. Max did create a politics based game, generally suited to recruiting the slightly brighter citizens on the 'net who wouldn't really take kindly to secret police style moderation team when considered enmasse.

Kinda created a rod for the moderation teams back with that one.

If I knew anything about the ruling, I'd probably try. If it made me curious, I might ask about it. If I participated in the ruling, almost certainly. I don' t know about the other mods, but most of the "moderation TGs" that I usually ignore have more to do with basic FAQ or "how do you become a mod" type queries, which I grew tired of answering years ago.

See, I've been around for well over 5 years and take quite an interest in the moderation forum (I'm nosey, sue me) and had no idea that was possible. Every time I've seen people not directly involved with a dispute request information in the mod forum it has been rebuffed.

Edit:

If I knew anything about the ruling, I'd probably try. If it made me curious, I might ask about it. If I participated in the ruling, almost certainly. I don' t know about the other mods, but most of the "moderation TGs" that I usually ignore have more to do with basic FAQ or "how do you become a mod" type queries, which I grew tired of answering years ago.

I misread this, I thought you were asking about an appeal involving yourself. If it asked about someone else's appeal, I would probably ignore it unless it asked a really good question or raised a really good point. Gameside we don't prefer to talk about infractions with anyone other than the offender, and that preference bleeds over into forum work too.

That's more how I thought it worked.

[The Cat-Tribe]

I suspect this discussion is nearing its term. We are (believe it or not) working on implementing some of the more sound suggestions, but the apparent preference of dictation over discussion by some people is a little off-putting. However, I do want to address a couple things I read yesterday while I was at work. I was tempted to fire off a quick post last night, but they tend to frown on cell phone use where I work.

I mentioned a few pages back that some of the proposed changes rubbed me the wrong way on account of their being (or at least implying the creation of) a vehicle to punish mods who make rulings that get overturned. TCT, while I appreciate the relatively cordial tone our exchange has hitherto enjoyed, it will be difficult to maintain if what I'm saying is being (intentionally?) distorted. I did not say that appeals were a form of punishment, I said that some of the proposed changes would turn them into that. I get a distinct "overturning the ruling is not enough" vibe from many of the proposed changes to the appeals process. The idea that we should only entertain an argument/defense from the player and not the mod on appeals is absurd and ain't gonna happen.

I also don't know where people are getting the idea that they don't have secure, private access to mods: this is the information age for Christ's sake. You can always TG/email a mod and/or contact them in IRC. You can file GHRs or mass-email us if you want everyone to see it. The only things we have that players don't is a mod/admin forum and an IRC channel, both of which are administrative necessities anyway. This goes hand-in-hand with my earlier remarks about sitting mods from decisions: it can and does happen, but won't for every single appeal. Just because we have M/A and IRC doesn't mean that 100% of mod-to-mod discourse needs to occur there. If one or more of us thinks another mod is way off base, we can always TG/email/PM each other also. It has happened before and will happen again. The point is, mods are already punished for bad rulings when we feel they need to be. I overturned another mod twice in seven days last year and even contacted someone in private to see if we should ask said mod to sit for a little while. It does happen, although I suspect not as often as some folks in this thread apparently want it to.

I'm sorry if any (or indeed all) of the above came off as coarse or unpolished, but this good cop/bad cop/angsty rage cop act is wearing a little thin with me. The more I read, the more it seems to me as if certain folks are making demands rather than suggestions, and given that approach it would be difficult for us to enact the proposed changes, even if we agreed with all of them. We certainly don't want to encourage the view that you can change the site's rules simply by being loud and/or indignant enough.

Fine. You've made clear this brick wall territory and even good suggestions will be rejected if not submitted with sufficient obsequious towards our Mod superiors. I will make a few comments.

1. No one I recall -- and certainly I never -- suggested Mods should be punished if a ruling they made is overturned. You were the first to make that bizarre leap.

2. For reasons explained ad naseum, it is this sentence which is absurd, nonsensical, and a bit paranoid: "The idea that we should only entertain an argument/defense from the player and not the mod on appeals is absurd and ain't gonna happen." You turn the whole idea of a neutral appeal of a moderate decision on its head and deliberately take on an "us" vs. "them" mentality toward the players. Shame on you.

3. Whether players have ways of contacting Mods is fucking irrelevant to this discussion. For example, TGs to Mods are flatly discouraged BY THE RULES OF THE FORUM. They are also routinely ignored. Regardless, none of them come anywhere close to equalling or offsetting the direct input of the Mod whose ruling is being appealled on the appeal itself. That is the only issue that is relevant.

Clearly, you like things the way they are -- even if they don't comply with the OSRS as written, are inconsitently applied, etc. You also don't like some of us who are raising these issue -- partially because our demeanor rubs you the wrong way and partially because we raise these type of issues. Fine.

I'm done. I shouldn't have left my vacation. I shall return to it. It would deeply sadden me to do so, but maybe I won't return. (I know, you and the other Mods don't care.)

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Well (as Melkor will testify) the mod cave thing does work...just did a test and had a pretty quick response from Sedgistan...

Yeah...I'm a great believer in testing me:)

And TGing Mods also helps (even if it is discouraged, is it?). I remember having a particular problem being ruled by Moderation a while back. If anything, the mod who was dealing with my case was more than accessible, in it's Moderator capacity and that of a fellow poster. While the ruling was being made and after the fact, this mod and I TGed back and forth and it (to keep this mod anonymous but I'm sure the mod will not like being referred to as an it ) answered all my questions and listened to what I had to say.

I appreciated the privacy too.

[Melkor Unchained]

Because we don't want players to take advantage of a disagreement between moderators. We're very touchy about being used as weapons and have rules in place to punish it: full disclosure would only encourage that. One of the only things I can see being viable right now is the idea of moving locked polls from M/A, although I wasn't clear on what cases they would be used.

I think we're talking at crossed purposes here. I'm not saying the deliberation process should be visible, just the fact finding.

But to us, they're part of the same process. The only way to separate them would be to prune posts from M/A, which would be confusing and unnecessary. What do we do about posts that contain both? Posting, trimming, and reposting comments from every appeal would get pretty old pretty fast, and people would still probably find ways to complain about deliberation transparency (since, let's face it, the players don't all want the same thing[s] and even these changes may not accommodate them). As volunteers, we have a certain interest in efficiency that I for one am not eager to countermand by trying to fix something that isn't broken.

do much to improve mod/player relations. Max did create a politics based game, generally suited to recruiting the slightly brighter citizens on the 'net who wouldn't really take kindly to secret police style moderation team when considered enmasse.

Kinda created a rod for the moderation teams back with that one.

I realize this, I'm just explaining my general preferences, which carry the day far from always!

See, I've been around for well over 5 years and take quite an interest in the moderation forum (I'm nosey, sue me) and had no idea that was possible. Every time I've seen people not directly involved with a dispute request information in the mod forum it has been rebuffed.

I must have been editing as you were writing this, it might clear things up.

[Melkor Unchained]

1. No one I recall -- and certainly I never -- suggested Mods should be punished if a ruling they made is overturned. You were the first to make that bizarre leap.

Not all punishment is executive punishment. If players know which mods voted against which users, some would undoubtedly take votes against them as being in bad faith and will start to heckle and harass said moderator and demand his dismissal, etc. It's happened in the past (also present) in the absence of such regulations, and I don't think any of us feel that our positions should be subject to public audit. As long as the Boss is happy with how the site is running, that's all that should matter to us. I defy anyone here to try and tell me with a straight face (okay... fingers?) that naming moderators would not also lead to shaming them. There will always be votes that @@user@@ or @@user2@@ disagrees with, for any number of reasons, and all they really need to know in the end is what decision was reached and why. Who voted which way is not something we're interested in disclosing. We're moderators, not public judges.

2. For reasons explained ad naseum, it is this sentence which is absurd, nonsensical, and a bit paranoid: "The idea that we should only entertain an argument/defense from the player and not the mod on appeals is absurd and ain't gonna happen." You turn the whole idea of a neutral appeal of a moderate decision on its head and deliberately take on an "us" vs. "them" mentality toward the players. Shame on you.

Um, I hate to break it to you, but that's what it is, at least on a theoretical level: both the mod and the player believe they are correct, and one way or the other either a middle ground must be met or a declaration made one way or the other. That's what moderation is. I'm not "turn[ing] the whole ideal of a neutral appeal ... on its head," I'm saying that's what we're already doing.

3. Whether players have ways of contacting Mods is fucking irrelevant to this discussion. For example, TGs to Mods are flatly discouraged BY THE RULES OF THE FORUM. They are also routinely ignored. Regardless, none of them come anywhere close to equalling or offsetting the direct input of the Mod whose ruling is being appealled on the appeal itself. That is the only issue that is relevant.

I actually mentioned and focused on IRC and email for a reason, Fartsniffage was the one who pointed out that TGs weren't the best way to go and I generally agree with him. Again, my point is that there are many more and useful tools available to the player in order for him/her to conduct as much contact with the mods as they want. If transparency is the issue here, then I don't see where you get the idea that constant contact with moderator(s) being possible is "fucking irrelevant" to establishing it. You can talk to us as much as you like, but we're just not going to debate amongst ourselves in front of everyone. I'm sorry, it's just not in the cards.

[Fartsniffage]

But to us, they're part of the same process. The only way to separate them would be to prune posts from M/A, which would be confusing and unnecessary. What do we do about posts that contain both? Posting, trimming, and reposting comments from every appeal would get pretty old pretty fast, and people would still probably find ways to complain about deliberation transparency (since, let's face it, the players don't all want the same thing[s] and even these changes may not accommodate them). As volunteers, we have a certain interest in efficiency that I for one am not eager to countermand by trying to fix something that isn't broken.

Oh well. This has been a thread about suggestions to improve moderation and the one common theme seems to have been asking for more transparency. This was my suggestion, one which I think you make seem more difficult to implement than it is. Perhaps you have some ideas?

Incidentally, I should probably point out that your statement above seems to fly in the face of claims that mods involved in an original decision are not involved in the decision about an appeal. Otherwise why would posts contain both? Just an observation.

I must have been editing as you were writing this, it might clear things up.

Yeah, I got the edit and edited to match. It's like we're dancing but in text form.

[The Cat-Tribe]

1. No one I recall -- and certainly I never -- suggested Mods should be punished if a ruling they made is overturned. You were the first to make that bizarre leap.

Not all punishment is executive punishment. If players know which mods voted against which users, some would undoubtedly take votes against them as being in bad faith and will start to heckle and harass said moderator and demand his dismissal, etc. It's happened in the past (also present) in the absence of such regulations, and I don't think any of us feel that our positions should be subject to public audit. As long as the Boss is happy with how the site is running, that's all that should matter to us. I defy anyone here to try and tell me with a straight face (okay... fingers?) that naming moderators would not also lead to shaming them. There will always be votes that @@user@@ or @@user2@@ disagrees with, for any number of reasons

2. For reasons explained ad naseum, it is this sentence which is absurd, nonsensical, and a bit paranoid: "The idea that we should only entertain an argument/defense from the player and not the mod on appeals is absurd and ain't gonna happen." You turn the whole idea of a neutral appeal of a moderate decision on its head and deliberately take on an "us" vs. "them" mentality toward the players. Shame on you.

Um, I hate to break it to you, but that's what it is, at least on a theoretical level: both the mod and the player believe they are correct, and one way or the other either a middle ground must be met or a declaration made one way or the other. That's what moderation is. I'm not "turn[ing] the whole ideal of a neutral appeal ... on its head," I'm saying that's what we're already doing.

3. Whether players have ways of contacting Mods is fucking irrelevant to this discussion. For example, TGs to Mods are flatly discouraged BY THE RULES OF THE FORUM. They are also routinely ignored. Regardless, none of them come anywhere close to equalling or offsetting the direct input of the Mod whose ruling is being appealled on the appeal itself. That is the only issue that is relevant.

I actually mentioned and focused on IRC and email for a reason, Fartsniffage was the one who pointed out that TGs weren't the best way to go and I generally agree with him. Again, my point is that there are many more and useful tools available to the player in order for him/her to conduct as much contact with the mods as they want. If transparency is the issue here, then I don't see where you get the idea that constant contact with moderator(s) being possible is "fucking irrelevant" to establishing it. You can talk to us as much as you like, but we're just not going to debate amongst ourselves in front of everyone. I'm sorry, it's just not in the cards.

Given that I have poor self-control, I can't help posting again to point out I NEVER ARGUED FOR MOD DELIBERATIONS TO BE PUBLIC OR MOD VOTES TO BE PUBLIC. In fact, if you look back at my posts, I argued against those ideas.

You just directed your almost your entire post at berating a strawman.

I am saddened to see you say Moderation is an "us" versus "them" battle between Mods and posters. I thought these Forums worked differently.

[Melkor Unchained]

But to us, they're part of the same process. The only way to separate them would be to prune posts from M/A, which would be confusing and unnecessary. What do we do about posts that contain both? Posting, trimming, and reposting comments from every appeal would get pretty old pretty fast, and people would still probably find ways to complain about deliberation transparency (since, let's face it, the players don't all want the same thing[s] and even these changes may not accommodate them). As volunteers, we have a certain interest in efficiency that I for one am not eager to countermand by trying to fix something that isn't broken.

Oh well. This has been a thread about suggestions to improve moderation and the one common theme seems to have been asking for more transparency. This was my suggestion, one which I think you make seem more difficult to implement than it is. Perhaps you have some ideas?

It's a topic that has come up a lot and accordingly, we've talked about it a lot. The farthest I'd be willing to go is publish anonymous polls from M/A in certain (high profile?) cases that deserved it. There are some things we're not interested in releasing to the public, and which mod voted for or against a certain player is one of them. We don't want rulings to become more politicized/complicated than they already are, and revealing the voting would open the door for players to take advantage of administrative disagreements to various ends.

Incidentally, I should probably point out that your statement above seems to fly in the face of claims that mods involved in an original decision are not involved in the decision about an appeal. Otherwise why would posts contain both? Just an observation

Well, it's long buried now but earlier I mentioned that the ruling mod makes his case, but doesn't get a 'vote' per se in the final decision since s/he basically already voted with the ruling in the first place. The ruling mod is not involved in the sense that s/he isn't a voter. The ruling mod can still state a case, s/he just doesn't get to vote.