by Saint Clair Island » Tue Dec 14, 2010 8:26 am
by The Bleeding Roses » Tue Dec 14, 2010 8:59 am
by Ballotonia » Tue Dec 14, 2010 9:07 am
by Sdaeriji » Tue Dec 14, 2010 9:11 am
Ballotonia wrote:Can you please clarify what the difference is in purpose between this thread and the "Legitimate complaints about the General forum" thread located here: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=82588
specifically since you're linking to a number of posts within that thread and request to continue discussing them here?
Ballotonia
by The Archregimancy » Tue Dec 14, 2010 9:28 am
by Ballotonia » Tue Dec 14, 2010 9:33 am
by Neo Art » Tue Dec 14, 2010 9:53 am
by The Cat-Tribe » Tue Dec 14, 2010 10:46 am
by Belschaft » Tue Dec 14, 2010 12:05 pm
Neo Art wrote:1) the rules need a rework. Firstly, the wording can be tightened up a bit, and the actual terms defined, and its entire structure as a set of rules is a bit…sloppy, but again, I’m not going to hold my standard here (though frankly it’d do a lot of good). I’m referring to the fact that the consequences of violation are utterly arbitrary. I’m not talking about the fact that what one mod will see as violation another might not. That’s subjective, and always dependant on the particular fact-finder (though a greater sense of precedent would be good). I’m talking about how the rules do not delineate in any sense what’s an appropriate response to particular conduct. Yes some conduct will be extreme. Yes some conduct will be egregious and require immediate, complete removal of the poster. There are mechanisms to include that.
I’m talking about how the very system of violation and consequence is 100% arbitrary. Whatever loose framework that you guys use to determine proper consequence, if there even is one at all, is utterly opaque and completely unaccessable. How can I possibly even begin to appeal a decision, if I don’t know the rationale behind what makes some conduct a “light warning” and others a 3 day ban?
You have a warning system, use it. Set a system in place that creates a progressive moderation consequence. Yeah, you do that now, somewhat, but damned if I know exactly what the progression is. And I don’t think you do either. If you did, we wouldn’t have so many violation consequences marked down.
Let the moderator decide how “severe” a violation is, set the warning level accordingly, and follow your damned script on how to deal with that warning level.
Neo Art wrote:2) How you make decisions is poor, and goes into rewriting the rules. When you make a decision, be able to point to the SPECIFIC RULE violated. Far too often it’s near impossible to tell exactly what a poster is actually getting warned for. We’ve, on more than one occasion, been told that the “red text” is the result, and what precedes it is just the explanation. It’s nonsensical. The explanation IS the answer. Be able to point to exactly what rule I’m violating, and be able to explain exactly how my conduct violates that rule, or don’t rule at all. You’ve gotten better at this, but it needs work.
Neo Art wrote:3) Your appeals process is nonsensical. It basically breaks down to “post your appeal, we’ll discuss it in a group and get back to you”. Bad. Horrible. That’s not in the slightest way accessable. That’s not in the slightest way transparent. First off, you have mods who made the decision participating in the appeal process. No, don’t do that. The moderator’s decision should be based on the facts presented, the rules cited, and the conclusion drawn WHEN THE DECISION IS MADE. No further input from the moderator should be needed for an appeal. If the post in which the moderation action was posted is insufficiently grounded, then the decision shouldn’t have been made in the first place. If you can not justify your decision when you make it, you shouldn’t be making it. Affording the opportunity for a moderator to elaborate after the fact is bad practice. An appeal works on the record. Create a good record, or don’t make your decision.
As for appeals, get moderators who handle appeals. Their job is to review both aspects. Whether the moderator’s decision that the poster violated a rule was appropriate, and whether or not the violation consequence assessed for the violation was appropriate. They’d have the power to modify either, or both. Those moderators don’t take part in initial decision making. They’re appeals.
Neo Art wrote:4) if a moderator is the subject of a complaint, for god’s sake, don’t let him or her participate in the decision making process. At all. No helping decide, no letting him have his word in your own sealed forum. No giving him any more access than any other poster. It is grossly improper. The fact that this has actually happened on more than one occasion boggles the mind. How you treat reporter and accused is uniform, across the board.
Neo Art wrote:5) get rid of mod only/not mod only topics. If a report is made against an individual, it relates on to the reporter, the reported, and the fact-finder. Nothing else is relevant, and nothing should be added further. They should all be “mod only”
Neo Art wrote:6) when an appeal decision is made, the decision should follow the same guidelines as a decision. Be ready to point to an actual rule violated, the actual facts of the circumstance, and why those facts violate that rule.
That is the basic tenant of decision making processes. What are the facts, what is the rule, and how do the facts fit, or not fit, the rule?
Neo Art wrote:7) Learn to delineate moderator and poster. Red text is good, but it’s not enough. When you’re a moderator, your words are going to be taken as moderation, even when you aren’t intending to. Find a way to separate what is a decision, what is a ruling, and what isn’t. If conduct is not violating a rule you have 0 official capacity. Find a way to clearly delineate what is what.
by Jenrak » Tue Dec 14, 2010 12:29 pm
Neo Art wrote:5) get rid of mod only/not mod only topics. If a report is made against an individual, it relates on to the reporter, the reported, and the fact-finder. Nothing else is relevant, and nothing should be added further. They should all be “mod only”
by Neo Art » Tue Dec 14, 2010 12:58 pm
Belschaft wrote:Neo Art wrote:3) Your appeals process is nonsensical. It basically breaks down to “post your appeal, we’ll discuss it in a group and get back to you”. Bad. Horrible. That’s not in the slightest way accessable. That’s not in the slightest way transparent. First off, you have mods who made the decision participating in the appeal process. No, don’t do that. The moderator’s decision should be based on the facts presented, the rules cited, and the conclusion drawn WHEN THE DECISION IS MADE. No further input from the moderator should be needed for an appeal. If the post in which the moderation action was posted is insufficiently grounded, then the decision shouldn’t have been made in the first place. If you can not justify your decision when you make it, you shouldn’t be making it. Affording the opportunity for a moderator to elaborate after the fact is bad practice. An appeal works on the record. Create a good record, or don’t make your decision.
As for appeals, get moderators who handle appeals. Their job is to review both aspects. Whether the moderator’s decision that the poster violated a rule was appropriate, and whether or not the violation consequence assessed for the violation was appropriate. They’d have the power to modify either, or both. Those moderators don’t take part in initial decision making. They’re appeals.
This seems like a fairly good idea, though may be complicated. There may be an easier way to solve the problem.
Neo Art wrote:5) get rid of mod only/not mod only topics. If a report is made against an individual, it relates on to the reporter, the reported, and the fact-finder. Nothing else is relevant, and nothing should be added further. They should all be “mod only”
I disagree here. A lot of queries in moderation can be answered by a player who can link to the relevant rule or an example of the mods decision, saving the mods work. Then all a mod has to do is come in, rubber stamp the linked rule as being correct. The problem is when people state opinion, something I sometimes do, but try not too. That should be discouraged. Players helping mods, when they know the answer - and I emphasis this clearly - should be encouraged.
Neo Art wrote:7) Learn to delineate moderator and poster. Red text is good, but it’s not enough. When you’re a moderator, your words are going to be taken as moderation, even when you aren’t intending to. Find a way to separate what is a decision, what is a ruling, and what isn’t. If conduct is not violating a rule you have 0 official capacity. Find a way to clearly delineate what is what.
I'm not sure we can really separate the two, short of mods all multi-accounting, and then with difficulty.
by Maurepas » Tue Dec 14, 2010 2:19 pm
by Muravyets » Tue Dec 14, 2010 2:47 pm
by Muravyets » Tue Dec 14, 2010 3:13 pm
by Lithatrius » Tue Dec 14, 2010 3:41 pm
by Belschaft » Tue Dec 14, 2010 3:55 pm
Lithatrius wrote:Maybe liaise with a hundred or so experienced players (2005ers onwards?) and what gravedigging in each forum is.
by Katganistan » Tue Dec 14, 2010 4:25 pm
by NERVUN » Tue Dec 14, 2010 5:02 pm
by Neo Art » Tue Dec 14, 2010 5:15 pm
NERVUN wrote:1. Three Mods for appeals: I think that might be possible. There are some senior moderators who, due to various RL events and the like, are no longer active as they once were who might be willing to sit on such a board. However, what I would be conserned with is that it would mean appeals would take longer in order to get the three to post their views and the like. Already final appeals take some time in order to gather the avalable/not involved mods and have them chew the soup as it were to come to consensus about the appeal, but excepting needing a blue coat (senior) it's any Mods that are avalable. If we limited it to a certain three, that would mean the time would lengthen. Is that ok?
2. Re-writting the rules: A few players have brought this up and, after spending such an enjoyable time re-aranging them, yes, they are a little thick. Probably because they evolved with the site. However, what would be very helpful for us is to see examples of rules that YOU think are unclear and what you think would be better. In other words, it's one thing to tell us to please re-write the rules, but we're the ones who wrote them in the first place. So I hope you can see why we're a little unsure just what kind of clarification you'd like to see.
3. Offical Mod Communication: This sounds very do able. Maybe something Reppy could code in like our warning code.
by Belschaft » Tue Dec 14, 2010 5:21 pm
Neo Art wrote:NERVUN wrote:1. Three Mods for appeals: I think that might be possible. There are some senior moderators who, due to various RL events and the like, are no longer active as they once were who might be willing to sit on such a board. However, what I would be conserned with is that it would mean appeals would take longer in order to get the three to post their views and the like. Already final appeals take some time in order to gather the avalable/not involved mods and have them chew the soup as it were to come to consensus about the appeal, but excepting needing a blue coat (senior) it's any Mods that are avalable. If we limited it to a certain three, that would mean the time would lengthen. Is that ok?
Appeals take time. It's the nature of the beast. That said, I think if you fix the rest, you'll have fewer.
by Muravyets » Tue Dec 14, 2010 5:32 pm
by Maurepas » Tue Dec 14, 2010 5:42 pm
Belschaft wrote:Neo Art wrote:
Appeals take time. It's the nature of the beast. That said, I think if you fix the rest, you'll have fewer.
Maybe have more than three appeal mods, but only three needed on each case? A potential nightmare may occur if a complaint is made against an appeal mod for non-mod issues, and that went to appeal, if we only had three. It would also cut down on the time a bit.
by Belschaft » Tue Dec 14, 2010 5:48 pm
Maurepas wrote:Belschaft wrote:
Maybe have more than three appeal mods, but only three needed on each case? A potential nightmare may occur if a complaint is made against an appeal mod for non-mod issues, and that went to appeal, if we only had three. It would also cut down on the time a bit.
Well, if appeal mods don't have ordinary moderator powers, I think that wouldn't be a problem.
by Neo Art » Tue Dec 14, 2010 5:53 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: New Rogernomics
Advertisement