On open and public punishments

[Caninope]

Hello, I'd like to talk about the use of punishments regarding the forum that are then effectively made in private. Can Moderation actually make it a rule (or at least a guideline) that all punishments for forum-side violations be made public in some manner or another? There was a recent round of 10 day bans that effectively happened in secret until it was finally released 5 days into the ban that these had been imposed in the first place.

EDIT to NERVUN's EDIT: Please stop editing my post, NERVUN. I quote [violet]:

Discussion Threads
Discussion threads are for informal chat about moderation processes, including rules, rulings, and policies. The purpose of a discussion thread is to share ideas for making the NationStates forums a better place. In a discussion thread:

• Anyone may post.
• Opinion is welcome.
• A topic prefix is not required.
• Reports about specific incidents should not be made. If you require a ruling about an incident, please start a report thread instead.

MODEDITED to add the word "Discussion" to the title -- Ard.

CANINOPE EDITED to remove the word "Discussion" from the title, because as the above quote from [violet] no less shows, I do not need the word "Discussion" in the title, so I ask that Moderation please kindly refrain from editing this post in the future.

[Bezombia]

I agree. Even if a "Recent bans" thread has to be made, it's imperative for the sanctity of this forum that "secret moderations" don't exist for something that happened on the forums.


Actually, a "Recent Bans" thread might not be that bad of an idea. Another forum I used to visit had one and it worked rather well.

[The Archregimancy]

Can Moderation actually make it a rule (or at least a guideline) that all punishments for forum-side violations be made public in some manner or another?

That's already what ideally happens in most cases; we already work to that (informal) guideline - though I acknowledge that you were recently involved in case where this didn't happen.

In most cases (though see below response to Bezombia) the ban would be made public in the relevant thread.

However, I do appreciate that where a ban is announced when someone is offline or no longer actively participating in a thread, the ban can come as a surprise to individuals who then return to find they're banned. There might be ways to address this.

Actually, a "Recent Bans" thread might not be that bad of an idea. Another forum I used to visit had one and it worked rather well.

I'm not sure this is entirely bureaucratically feasible for a variety of reasons. Some of these are technical and related to how the ban mechanism is implemented (which someone more technically minded than myself might have to address), others relate to rare cases where a mod might decide to implement a non-public temporary ban (these can vary in length) while members of the moderation team discuss the particulars of a specific case. While this is rare, there are practical reasons why we occasionally take this step.

[Caninope]

Can Moderation actually make it a rule (or at least a guideline) that all punishments for forum-side violations be made public in some manner or another?

That's already what ideally happens in most cases; we already work to that (informal) guideline - though I acknowledge that you were recently involved in case where this didn't happen.

And this is wrong, Arch. It's also happened since my own encounter, if the word of another poster I know is to be believed. I'm not out to pick a bone, I'm out to get this fixed. Yes, this normally happens, but it's a problem because it's not always happening.

[Bezombia]

Can Moderation actually make it a rule (or at least a guideline) that all punishments for forum-side violations be made public in some manner or another?

That's already what ideally happens in most cases; we already work to that (informal) guideline - though I acknowledge that you were recently involved in case where this didn't happen.

In most cases (though see below response to Bezombia) the ban would be made public in the relevant thread.

However, I do appreciate that where a ban is announced when someone is offline or no longer actively participating in a thread, the ban can come as a surprise to individuals who then return to find they're banned. There might be ways to address this.

I assume the "Always TG someone when they've been moderated" rule that was decided upon a few months ago is still in effect?

I'm not sure this is entirely bureaucratically feasible for a variety of reasons. Some of these are technical and related to how the ban mechanism is implemented (which someone more technically minded than myself might have to address), others relate to rare cases where a mod might decide to implement a non-public temporary ban (these can vary in length) while members of the moderation team discuss the particulars of a specific case. While this is rare, there are practical reasons why we occasionally take this step.

Such as?

[Alyakia]

I agree. Even if a "Recent bans" thread has to be made, it's imperative for the sanctity of this forum that "secret moderations" don't exist for something that happened on the forums.


Actually, a "Recent Bans" thread might not be that bad of an idea. Another forum I used to visit had one and it worked rather well.

to be honest even outside of transparency issues this would just be cool in general as a way to keep track of going ons in the forums in one central place for mods and posters (or "why did this guy suddenly stop responding to my posts oh ok i see")

However, I do appreciate that where a ban is announced when someone is offline or no longer actively participating in a thread, the ban can come as a surprise to individuals who then return to find they're banned. There might be ways to address this.

i appreciate it it's not easy and i think it's already been covered but i'm still holding "informing people they're warned/banned without hoping they happen to stumble upon the relevant posts" as my personal moderation crusade. i think reppy had my back on this issue tho which is pretty cool.

I assume the "Always TG someone when they've been moderated" rule that was decided upon a few months ago is still in effect?

wait what? wasn't that actively rejected as an option?

[NERVUN]

That's already what ideally happens in most cases; we already work to that (informal) guideline - though I acknowledge that you were recently involved in case where this didn't happen.

In most cases (though see below response to Bezombia) the ban would be made public in the relevant thread.

However, I do appreciate that where a ban is announced when someone is offline or no longer actively participating in a thread, the ban can come as a surprise to individuals who then return to find they're banned. There might be ways to address this.

I assume the "Always TG someone when they've been moderated" rule that was decided upon a few months ago is still in effect?

I'm not sure this is entirely bureaucratically feasible for a variety of reasons. Some of these are technical and related to how the ban mechanism is implemented (which someone more technically minded than myself might have to address), others relate to rare cases where a mod might decide to implement a non-public temporary ban (these can vary in length) while members of the moderation team discuss the particulars of a specific case. While this is rare, there are practical reasons why we occasionally take this step.

Such as?

Technically the forums aren't set up to auto-anything. Bans are supposed to have a reason shown, but it's up to the individual Mod to enter them in. From time to time we don't, usually when dealing with a persistent spammer or some other kind of snowball situation where hitting the breaks seems to be the best idea.

[NERVUN]

wait what? wasn't that actively rejected as an option?

AFAIK, it was never said that we would.

It would be nice if the forum software could talk to the game software and do it automatically but... Alas.

[Bezombia]

I assume the "Always TG someone when they've been moderated" rule that was decided upon a few months ago is still in effect?




Such as?

Technically the forums aren't set up to auto-anything. Bans are supposed to have a reason shown, but it's up to the individual Mod to enter them in. From time to time we don't, usually when dealing with a persistent spammer or some other kind of snowball situation where hitting the breaks seems to be the best idea.

Then don't make it automated. Just have a really big thread where the moderators have to edit in a moderation they've made when they make one. It shouldn't take more than a minute or so at the most to do. Just a simple "date/nation/action/reason" list would suffice.

[NERVUN]

Technically the forums aren't set up to auto-anything. Bans are supposed to have a reason shown, but it's up to the individual Mod to enter them in. From time to time we don't, usually when dealing with a persistent spammer or some other kind of snowball situation where hitting the breaks seems to be the best idea.

Then don't make it automated. Just have a really big thread where the moderators have to edit in a moderation they've made when they make one. It shouldn't take more than a minute or so at the most to do. Just a simple "date/nation/action/reason" list would suffice.

Why?

[Caninope]

Then don't make it automated. Just have a really big thread where the moderators have to edit in a moderation they've made when they make one. It shouldn't take more than a minute or so at the most to do. Just a simple "date/nation/action/reason" list would suffice.

Why?

Because I'd rather not like bans to be handed out in secret?

[Divair]

Why?

Because I'd rather not like bans to be handed out in secret?

If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.
*nod*

[NERVUN]

Why?

Because I'd rather not like bans to be handed out in secret?

The person who is banned knows they are banned though... I'm still not getting why a list is needed. From a technical prospective, it'd be a bear to keep up to date.

[Caninope]

Because I'd rather not like bans to be handed out in secret?

The person who is banned knows they are banned though... I'm still not getting why a list is needed. From a technical prospective, it'd be a bear to keep up to date.

The point isn't so the banned know that they are banned, the point is so that the forum knows what the Moderation is doing. If Moderation truly wants to start being more transparent, then walk the walk.

[Bezombia]

Then don't make it automated. Just have a really big thread where the moderators have to edit in a moderation they've made when they make one. It shouldn't take more than a minute or so at the most to do. Just a simple "date/nation/action/reason" list would suffice.

Why?

Plenty of reasons.

-Lack of "secret bans" may restore faith of some in the moderation staff.
-Posters who were just having a conversation with someone who was now banned can simply visit the thread to see why they were banned and when/if they were coming back.
-Completely eliminates the chance of mod abuse in secret bans (I'm not saying it's ever happened, but it certainly can), and if a mod doesn't post in the thread then the playerbase will know that something suspicious is up.
-We already know that all moderator actions are logged, so it's not like this would be some grand shift in the way things are done. Just a bit more transparency to ease the mind, etc.

[The Archregimancy]

That's already what ideally happens in most cases; we already work to that (informal) guideline - though I acknowledge that you were recently involved in case where this didn't happen.

And this is wrong, Arch. It's also happened since my own encounter, if the word of another poster I know is to be believed. I'm not out to pick a bone, I'm out to get this fixed. Yes, this normally happens, but it's a problem because it's not always happening.

It's a guideline Caninope, not a rule. It will remain a guideline, not a rule.

Guidelines are sometimes flexible.

As you're kind enough to directly acknowledge, normal procedure is indeed to make the ban public. That it didn't happen in two cases - of which I only have the details of one - doesn't change the fact that it remains a guideline, not a rule, and a guideline which - as you indeed note - we usually follow.

This is unlikely to change.

I'm not sure this is entirely bureaucratically feasible for a variety of reasons. Some of these are technical and related to how the ban mechanism is implemented (which someone more technically minded than myself might have to address), others relate to rare cases where a mod might decide to implement a non-public temporary ban (these can vary in length) while members of the moderation team discuss the particulars of a specific case. While this is rare, there are practical reasons why we occasionally take this step.

Such as?

A range of by no means definitive examples:

1) We're unsure of whether an account is an adbot or not, so ban temporarily while we try and gather more evidence before making a final decision.

2) We're unsure of whether an account is DOS or not, so ban temporarily while we try and gather more evidence before making a final decision.

3) A moderator decides that a temporary ban is necessary while bringing an important case to the attention of the rest of the team for broader discussion rather than making a final decision on his her own initiative.

4) Moderator discretion based on the unique context of a specific case.

However, I do appreciate that where a ban is announced when someone is offline or no longer actively participating in a thread, the ban can come as a surprise to individuals who then return to find they're banned. There might be ways to address this.

i appreciate it it's not easy and i think it's already been covered but i'm still holding "informing people they're warned/banned without hoping they happen to stumble upon the relevant posts" as my personal moderation crusade. i think reppy had my back on this issue tho which is pretty cool.

I think this is worth you raising again. Could you explore this in a little more detail please, perhaps restating the particulars of the original discussion?

[Caninope]

And this is wrong, Arch. It's also happened since my own encounter, if the word of another poster I know is to be believed. I'm not out to pick a bone, I'm out to get this fixed. Yes, this normally happens, but it's a problem because it's not always happening.

It's a guideline Caninope, not a rule. It will remain a guideline, not a rule.

Guidelines are sometimes flexible.

As you're kind enough to directly acknowledge, normal procedure is indeed to make the ban public. That it didn't happen in two cases - of which I only have the details of one - doesn't change the fact that it remains a guideline, not a rule, and a guideline which - as you indeed note - we usually follow.

This is unlikely to change.

But here's my question- why is it only a guideline and not a rule?

[Bezombia]

A range of by no means definitive examples:

1) We're unsure of whether an account is an adbot or not, so ban temporarily while we try and gather more evidence before making a final decision.

2) We're unsure of whether an account is DOS or not, so ban temporarily while we try and gather more evidence before making a final decision.

3) A moderator decides that a temporary ban is necessary while bringing an important case to the attention of the rest of the team for broader discussion rather than making a final decision on his her own initiative.

4) Moderator discretion based on the unique context of a specific case.

All of those could easily go in the "Reason" column.


There's no reason you couldn't have something like this:

3/19/14 | Makhnovia | Temporary 24H ban | Unsure if DOS, banned while investigation continues

[Ethel mermania]

Because I'd rather not like bans to be handed out in secret?

The person who is banned knows they are banned though... I'm still not getting why a list is needed. From a technical prospective, it'd be a bear to keep up to date.

two reasons.
1. transparency
2. so other players who are expecting to interact with the banned player know why.

make it like the gravedig thread, just a never ending list, only moderation can post on it.

banned, nation, end of ban date/time, linky to ban notice if any.


all you need

[The Archregimancy]

The person who is banned knows they are banned though... I'm still not getting why a list is needed. From a technical prospective, it'd be a bear to keep up to date.

The point isn't so the banned know that they are banned, the point is so that the forum knows what the Moderation is doing. If Moderation truly wants to start being more transparent, then walk the walk.

I think we'll have to respectfully disagree over the levels of "transparency" we consider desirable or achievable.

By all means feel free to argue politely for your position, as you are indeed doing, but - with regret - I think you may be disappointed if you expect me to agree with the position you're advocating.

[Bezombia]

The point isn't so the banned know that they are banned, the point is so that the forum knows what the Moderation is doing. If Moderation truly wants to start being more transparent, then walk the walk.

I think we'll have to respectfully disagree over the levels of "transparency" we consider desirable or achievable.

By all means feel free to argue politely for your position, as you are indeed doing, but - with regret - I think you may be disappointed if you expect me to agree with the position you're advocating.

Is there any good reason not to be transparent?

[Divair]

I think we'll have to respectfully disagree over the levels of "transparency" we consider desirable or achievable.

By all means feel free to argue politely for your position, as you are indeed doing, but - with regret - I think you may be disappointed if you expect me to agree with the position you're advocating.

Is there any good reason not to be transparent?

National security.

[The Archregimancy]

But here's my question- why is it only a guideline and not a rule?

Because context requires us to make exceptions; it's therefore better framed as a guideline.

Your OP to this thread states that while you'd prefer it to be a rule, you'd accept it being a guideline.

I'm therefore pleased to be able to reassure you that it is indeed a guideline, in keeping with your OP's request.

[Bezombia]

Is there any good reason not to be transparent?

National security.

Nationstatesical security?
Even then it doesn't make any sense. It's not like NS is going to get bombed by terrorists if they post a ban log.

[Alyakia]

I think this is worth you raising again. Could you explore this in a little more detail please, perhaps restating the particulars of the original discussion?

well, the original original discussion was here

a more concise summary of the problem i think there is here along with the aforementioned reppsponse

i figured it'd be easy to just link because i think the posts covered it pretty well

Is there any good reason not to be transparent?

National security.

im surprised there aren't more max barry/barack "barry" obama jokes