On open and public punishments

[Lunatic Goofballs]

Is there any good reason not to be transparent?

National security.

You don't need to know about our Secret Police force.

...crap.

[The Archregimancy]

Is there any good reason not to be transparent?

Sometimes, regrettably yes.

Your next question is likely to be "can you give me some examples?"

Regrettably, probably not.

Speaking purely to how I moderate as an individual - and not for the entire moderation team - I always do my best to be as transparent as possible when making a moderation decision. However, there are rare cases where I have to withhold information. Do I always like doing so? No. Is it sometimes necessary? Yes; when context demands.

This remains a basic philosophical issue that this thread is unlikely to resolve.

All I can do is to stress again that context is often everything; if I'm unable to give specific examples, it's because these things often have to be judged on a case by case basis.

[Bezombia]

National security.

You don't need to know about our Secret Police force.

...crap.

This is not a laughing matter.

Is there any good reason not to be transparent?

Sometimes, regrettably yes.

Your next question is likely to be "can you give me some examples?"

Regrettably, probably not.

Speaking purely to how I moderate as an individual - and not for the entire moderation team - I always do my best to be as transparent as possible when making a moderation decision. However, there are rare cases where I have to withhold information. Do I always like doing so? No. Is it sometimes necessary? Yes; when context demands.

This remains a basic philosophical issue that this thread is unlikely to resolve.

All I can do is to stress again that context is often everything; if I'm unable to give specific examples, it's because these things often have to be judged on a case by case basis.

Let me get this straight.

You're telling me that there are circumstances where it's important that nobody know what moderation is doing.
You're saying that these instances alone would undermine an entire idea that was just trying to ease frustration and that would have no effect on the ability of the moderation staff to do their job.
And, finally, you're telling me that you can't back this up, that you can't provide any examples or even a hypothetical situation in which that would be the case, but that I should just take your word for it anyway?

I apologize if this post sounds a bit hostile, but I'm just trying to make sense of this, because from my point of view that doesn't make any sense.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

I have a hypothetical. Suppose we suspect someone of criminal activity. Well as a privately owned forum, we don't have the same burden of proof as a legal system would. We can simply say, "Nah. Why take chances? Toss him." But if we make that action and our reasons why public and transparent, then we just made an accusation.

[The Archregimancy]

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

I've started a thread in the Sekret Moderator Forum for discussing constructive suggestions and points that arise from the new discussion threads in Moderation.

I'll post this in that thread.

Bezombia, I'll likely quote some of your points about a public ban list as well; though I disagree with some of the practical suggestions you've raised, that doesn't mean we shouldn't discuss them internally.

Please be patient with us; we're still feeling our own way around this new system.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

You don't need to know about our Secret Police force.

...crap.

This is not a laughing matter.

Hello, I don't think we've been properly introduced: I'm Lunatic Goofballs; Resident Wacko. Just about everything is a laughing matter to me. It's literally my profession.

[Bezombia]

I have a hypothetical. Suppose we suspect someone of criminal activity. Well as a privately owned forum, we don't have the same burden of proof as a legal system would. We can simply say, "Nah. Why take chances? Toss him." But if we make that action and our reasons why public and transparent, then we just made an accusation.

There are so many problems with this I don't even know where to start.

1: "Nah. Why take chances? Toss him."? Are you serious? Not only is that ridiculous, but it directly goes against the actions taken by previous moderators in previous instances (I'm sure the thread will get locked if I mention it by name, but you know what I'm talking about).
2: If you're scared to make a ruling public, you probably shouldn't have made that ruling.
3: Saying that you don't need proof to ban someone is basically declaring yourself an oligarchy. That's what what the moderation staff wants, I'm sure, and in fact the trend as gone the other way in previous cases (with moderators requiring almost too much proof before taking action).

[Wrapper]

I have a hypothetical. Suppose we suspect someone of criminal activity. Well as a privately owned forum, we don't have the same burden of proof as a legal system would. We can simply say, "Nah. Why take chances? Toss him." But if we make that action and our reasons why public and transparent, then we just made an accusation.

Or a not-so-hypothetical situation -- someone is suspected of cybering with a minor and is temporarily banned/deleted (I forget which) while the mods collect all the information. It would not be wise to make this information public, in case someone is mistaken and the alleged activity didn't happen.

[Divair]

This is not a laughing matter.

Hello, I don't think we've been properly introduced: I'm Lunatic Goofballs; Resident Wacko. Just about everything is a laughing matter to me. It's literally my profession.

How reassuring, coming from a moderator.

[Bezombia]

I have a hypothetical. Suppose we suspect someone of criminal activity. Well as a privately owned forum, we don't have the same burden of proof as a legal system would. We can simply say, "Nah. Why take chances? Toss him." But if we make that action and our reasons why public and transparent, then we just made an accusation.

Or a not-so-hypothetical situation -- someone is suspected of cybering with a minor and is temporarily banned/deleted (I forget which) while the mods collect all the information. It would not be wise to make this information public, in case someone is mistaken and the alleged activity didn't happen.

Then the mods would simply issue a statement saying that that after an investigation, their initial thoughts turned out to be incorrect, and the nation has be unbanned/reinstated.
Not that hard.

This is not a laughing matter.

Hello, I don't think we've been properly introduced: I'm Lunatic Goofballs; Resident Wacko. Just about everything is a laughing matter to me. It's literally my profession.

You're also a moderator. And, as a result, you have a direct influence on the direction this forum takes. There are times to make jokes and there are times to not. This is one of times to not.

[The Archregimancy]

And, finally, you're telling me that you can't back this up, that you can't provide any examples or even a hypothetical situation in which that would be the case, but that I should just take your word for it anyway?

I apologize if this post sounds a bit hostile, but I'm just trying to make sense of this, because from my point of view that doesn't make any sense.

No apologies are necessary.

I'm perhaps not quite explaining myself as well as I hoped to. Addressing your specific points:

A) "You're telling me that there are circumstances where it's important that nobody know what moderation is doing." I would perhaps put the emphasis differently; I would say that the are situations where specific information can't be made public.

B) "You're saying that these instances alone would undermine an entire idea that was just trying to ease frustration and that would have no effect on the ability of the moderation staff to do their job." Goodness no; that's not what I'm saying at all. I think we might have a communication disconnect here, because I'm not sure what you mean with this point. Could you perhaps rephrase that?

C) "you're telling me that you can't back this up, that you can't provide any examples or even a hypothetical situation in which that would be the case, but that I should just take your word for it anyway" If there are situations where I can't be as transparent as I'd like, I'm unlikely to advertise them, otherwise I'd feel free to be more transparent about them. So will you have to take my word for it in some circumstances? In the end, probably yes. I am indeed genuinely sorry if you don't trust me enough as an individual for that to be acceptable.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

I have a hypothetical. Suppose we suspect someone of criminal activity. Well as a privately owned forum, we don't have the same burden of proof as a legal system would. We can simply say, "Nah. Why take chances? Toss him." But if we make that action and our reasons why public and transparent, then we just made an accusation.

There are so many problems with this I don't even know where to start.

1: "Nah. Why take chances? Toss him."? Are you serious? Not only is that ridiculous, but it directly goes against the actions taken by previous moderators in previous instances (I'm sure the thread will get locked if I mention it by name, but you know what I'm talking about).
2: If you're scared to make a ruling public, you probably shouldn't have made that ruling.
3: Saying that you don't need proof to ban someone is basically declaring yourself an oligarchy. That's what what the moderation staff wants, I'm sure, and in fact the trend as gone the other way in previous cases (with moderators requiring almost too much proof before taking action).

1) These things happen. It's not your forum.
2) It's a nice sentiment, but you aren't the one that would have legal action threatened against him.
3) Actually, it's more of a Dictatorship with Max Barry as Supreme Leader and us as his willing minions. Fortunately, he is a kind and benevolent leader and asks us to be as fair and open as he deems possible.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

I have a hypothetical. Suppose we suspect someone of criminal activity. Well as a privately owned forum, we don't have the same burden of proof as a legal system would. We can simply say, "Nah. Why take chances? Toss him." But if we make that action and our reasons why public and transparent, then we just made an accusation.

Or a not-so-hypothetical situation -- someone is suspected of cybering with a minor and is temporarily banned/deleted (I forget which) while the mods collect all the information. It would not be wise to make this information public, in case someone is mistaken and the alleged activity didn't happen.

I wasn't around for that, and probably wouldn't feel comfortable commenting on it even if I had all the facts, which I don't.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

Hello, I don't think we've been properly introduced: I'm Lunatic Goofballs; Resident Wacko. Just about everything is a laughing matter to me. It's literally my profession.

How reassuring, coming from a moderator.

Isn't it though?

[Divair]

How reassuring, coming from a moderator.

Isn't it though?

No.

[Ethel mermania]

Is there any good reason not to be transparent?

Sometimes, regrettably yes.

Your next question is likely to be "can you give me some examples?"

Regrettably, probably not.

Speaking purely to how I moderate as an individual - and not for the entire moderation team - I always do my best to be as transparent as possible when making a moderation decision. However, there are rare cases where I have to withhold information. Do I always like doing so? No. Is it sometimes necessary? Yes; when context demands.

This remains a basic philosophical issue that this thread is unlikely to resolve.

All I can do is to stress again that context is often everything; if I'm unable to give specific examples, it's because these things often have to be judged on a case by case basis.

that does not mean a public note of the ban, and endtime of ban cannot be made without a reason. call it moderation discression instead of a link to the reason.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

Hello, I don't think we've been properly introduced: I'm Lunatic Goofballs; Resident Wacko. Just about everything is a laughing matter to me. It's literally my profession.

You're also a moderator. And, as a result, you have a direct influence on the direction this forum takes. There are times to make jokes and there are times to not. This is one of times to not.

I disagree. I became a moderator BECAUSE of who I am, not in spite of it. I come here to entertain and be entertained. In one way, shape or form so does everybody else. I became a moderator to help keep this place entertaining for as many people as possible.

[The Archregimancy]

I apologise for temporarily locking this thread.

It's being spammed by a DOS player who is repeatedly forming new accounts to spam the discussion.

I promise I'll unlock in due course. Regrettably, this is precisely the sort of issue we'd hoped to avoid with these threads.

I was wholly sincere about raising issues noted by Bezombia and Alyakia in the internal moderation forum, and will do that now.


I am genuinely sorry for cutting this discussion short like this, but I will reopen the thread within the next 24 hours, and will make a short post when I do so so that it rises back to the top of the first page.

[The Archregimancy]

I'm about to unlock this thread.

I'm also about to logout; it's getting late here in Dubai, and other commitments need to take priority for a while.

But lack of further participation from me shouldn't preclude further discussion, of course.

I will note that a useful internal discussion is taking place within the moderation team about some of the practical issues raised by Bezombia and Alyakia in particular.

I'll admit that, as a group, we're still not inclined to publish an ongoing public list of banned individuals, but we are looking closely at ways of potentially improving the system whereby individuals are notified when they are banned, so that there's much more clarity for those banned individuals.

[Bezombia]

And, finally, you're telling me that you can't back this up, that you can't provide any examples or even a hypothetical situation in which that would be the case, but that I should just take your word for it anyway?

I apologize if this post sounds a bit hostile, but I'm just trying to make sense of this, because from my point of view that doesn't make any sense.

No apologies are necessary.

I'm perhaps not quite explaining myself as well as I hoped to if that's the impression I'm giving. Addressing your specific points

A) "You're telling me that there are circumstances where it's important that nobody know what moderation is doing." I would perhaps put the emphasis differently; I would say that the are situations where specific information can't be made public.

B) "You're saying that these instances alone would undermine an entire idea that was just trying to ease frustration and that would have no effect on the ability of the moderation staff to do their job." Goodness no; that's not what I'm saying at all. I think we might have a communication disconnect here, because I'm not sure what you mean with this point. Could you perhaps rephrase that?

C) "you're telling me that you can't back this up, that you can't provide any examples or even a hypothetical situation in which that would be the case, but that I should just take your word for it anyway" If there are situations where I can't be as transparent as I'd like, I'm unlikely to advertise them, otherwise I'd feel free to be more transparent about them. So will you have to take my word for it in some circumstances? In the end, probably yes. I am indeed genuinely sorry if you don't trust me enough as an individual for that to be acceptable.

A: If that specific information falls outside the realm of nation, date, action, and brief reason, then there's no need for it to be disclosed anyway. I'm not asking for the mod-only forums to become public.
B: As an answer to my question as to what the reasons would be to maintain nontransparency which you said as a response to my idea of a modlog, you said this: viewtopic.php?p=19272702#p19272702
C: You can't even give me a hypothetical situation? Also I'm not trying to make this about you specifically. You could say my trust of the moderation staff as a whole has been jarred a bit.

1) These things happen. It's not your forum.
2) It's a nice sentiment, but you aren't the one that would have legal action threatened against him.
3) Actually, it's more of a Dictatorship with Max Barry as Supreme Leader and us as his willing minions. Fortunately, he is a kind and benevolent leader and asks us to be as fair and open as he deems possible.

1: ...What is that even supposed to mean?
2: I'm sure that if you come to the reasonable solution that someone has committed a crime, the threat of legal action would not be nearly as bad as you make it out to be.
3: Which is what we're trying to accomplish here.

I apologise for temporarily locking this thread.

It's being spammed by a DOS player who is repeatedly forming new accounts to spam the discussion.

This is the exact kind of situation where we'd benefit from a publicly viewable modlog.

[Ovisterra]

Whether or not a public ban list is created, it'd be nice if the actual people who are banned were told why they were banned/how long they were banned for. Edlichbury, for instance, was banned for no apparent reason. Sure, there's a mention of a 10 day ban for "spreading misinformation" here, but it's been a lot longer than 10 days since then. He even posted briefly after the 10 day ban was up. Since then however, he's found himself unable to post due to an unexplained ban. This is confusing for him, he tells me, and I imagine that indefinite, apparently random bans would be.

Heck, everyone involved in the misinformation fiasco I linked above suffered something similar. It took several days for any of them to hear anything about why they were banned or when they'd be unbanned. Most of them were, in fairness, unbanned after the 10 days were up.

Is it that unreasonable to expect mods provide a reason and a length of time when banning people, be it publicly or privately?

[Euroslavia]

Whether or not a public ban list is created, it'd be nice if the actual people who are banned were told why they were banned/how long they were banned for. Edlichbury, for instance, was banned for no apparent reason. Sure, there's a mention of a 10 day ban for "spreading misinformation" here, but it's been a lot longer than 10 days since then. He even posted briefly after the 10 day ban was up. Since then however, he's found himself unable to post due to an unexplained ban. This is confusing for him, he tells me, and I imagine that indefinite, apparently random bans would be.

Heck, everyone involved in the misinformation fiasco I linked above suffered something similar. It took several days for any of them to hear anything about why they were banned or when they'd be unbanned. Most of them were, in fairness, unbanned after the 10 days were up.

Is it that unreasonable to expect mods provide a reason and a length of time when banning people, be it publicly or privately?

That was an error on our part. It has been fixed and I've telegrammed Edlichbury about it.

[Ovisterra]

Whether or not a public ban list is created, it'd be nice if the actual people who are banned were told why they were banned/how long they were banned for. Edlichbury, for instance, was banned for no apparent reason. Sure, there's a mention of a 10 day ban for "spreading misinformation" here, but it's been a lot longer than 10 days since then. He even posted briefly after the 10 day ban was up. Since then however, he's found himself unable to post due to an unexplained ban. This is confusing for him, he tells me, and I imagine that indefinite, apparently random bans would be.

Heck, everyone involved in the misinformation fiasco I linked above suffered something similar. It took several days for any of them to hear anything about why they were banned or when they'd be unbanned. Most of them were, in fairness, unbanned after the 10 days were up.

Is it that unreasonable to expect mods provide a reason and a length of time when banning people, be it publicly or privately?

That was an error on our part. It has been fixed and I've telegrammed Edlichbury about it.

Thanks, Euro. I'm glad to hear it got sorted out.

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

Part of the problem here is that some offenses are gameside, and some are forumside. Add that to the longstanding issue of offenses and details behind them being between player and the moderation team, and we have a situation that again, as with many situations on the game, is handled on a case by case basis.

And just because a similar case was handled one way, is no guarantee another will be handled exactly the same. Because each situation is individual. And the surrounding circumstances, player history (which has never been public domain aside from the forumside bits a person could search for where posted in public forums), are other aspects that require proper consideration.

Each and every mod action is not up for public discussion - that's why we have the OSRS, and the GHR system. Given the rule layout, the most recent of which players had the opportunity to contribute to, players already know why we do many of the things we do, and what the standing rules are for game and forum. While a player is free to appeal an action taken against them, there is no reason to turn a mod action into an appeal to popularity.

Transparency does not mean we are required to give a running report to the playerbase of every action we take. We answer to the site owner and his administrators. We have outlined the what and why for all players to access. We make whatever reasonable attempts we can to note when an action is taken forumside, as can be seen in numerous redtexts that have been posted, and occasionally gameside on RMB's when appropriate.

Many methods we have are guidelines rather than hard-fast rules due to the nature of the beast. Feel free to reference [violet's] post on discussion/report threads for some of the reasoning there.

"Because we demand the right to know", like it or not, is not an adequate reason to catalog each and every mod action for your perusal and judgement. We have avenues for appeal, we have avenues for questions and discussion when appropriate. That's more than most forums I've been on afford their players. The fact that it is not enough for some could be seen as academic.

[Reploid Productions]

Ideally, if we had a way to automate a ban (or warning, for that matter!) notification, that'd probably be ideal. Sadly, I don't think automating it is going to happen any time soon due to the limited way the forum and game talk to one another. And forum mods can't send Voice of Mod TGs to users either, and we don't want them sending such notices via personal TG.

While less than ideal (and less than instantaneous), I'm thinking a workable solution might be some sort of thread in the mod lair for forum mods to flag game mods to send such notices manually. (And us game mods need to get into the habit of sending such notices ourselves!) We already have something like that for forum mods to flag accounts that need deleting (like adbots/pornspammers/DOSes) if they happen to spot them before a game mod does, so a "warning/ban notice" waitlist isn't anything particularly extraordinary.

While it's unlikely we'll ever make a public listing of bans/warnings/DOSes, we could definitely stand to improve how we notify players when they get dinged for something forumside.