A Critique of NS Moderation Policy

[The Black Forrest]

Does Max Barry own the world?

What he does own is this site.

Which changes what, exactly, about my comments? Whether or not Max Barry owns the website has no bearing on whether or not democratically elected mods would be a better system than the totalitarian one we currently have.

Sure it does. His site; his rules. Guess what you call that?

[Divair]

Well..at least in a democracy we can vote out those that don't use their powers well....and if we elect idiots we only have ourselves to blame.

How do you define a "good" moderator. It often means annoying people as NSG gets quite a few visitors who think "you can't tell me what to do....."

Mod elections are a bad idea.

The process in place is good.

But random arbitrary line that determines inconsistency! Our government is a lie! Authoritarian sheeple!

[Luveria]

Or what it really is. Institutionalized transphobia because the mods tend to be oblivious to when something is transphobic. I provided a parallel example of how branding Jews with a Star of David would be a ban. But say it about transgender people? The mods will say the poster is only expressing their opinion, while ignoring it's blatantly trolling, only because transgender people are the target of it.

I doubt that they are oblivious.

They just don't understand it, and therefore can't make a proper judgement about whether or not something is blatantly transphobia or trolling.

Is it really so difficult to think for a moment and replace "branding X group with Y"? When suggesting to brand Jews or gays is obvious trolling, but transgender people are fair game, that shows transphobia. There's nothing else to call it when the people supposed to be enforcing the rules can sit by idly and dismiss trolling against transgender people when an identical statement towards any other group would be actionable. As long as X group is transgender people, it's totally fine!

[Aurora Novus]

Which changes what, exactly, about my comments? Whether or not Max Barry owns the website has no bearing on whether or not democratically elected mods would be a better system than the totalitarian one we currently have.

Sure it does. His site; his rules. Guess what you call that?

Pointing out what is does not, in any way, influence the argument of what should be.

[The Black Forrest]

So must you ask them for permission if you want to log out?

Logging out no. But my private conversations with other members, yeah.

Also, I need moderator permission to log in in a sense. Which in of itself might not seem like a problem, until you encounter the issue where the community might wish for a individual to be a part of it, but the mods deny it. That's incredibly immoral in my eyes.

You choose to be here. You accept the rules.

This isn't a democracy.

[Blasveck]

I doubt that they are oblivious.

They just don't understand it, and therefore can't make a proper judgement about whether or not something is blatantly transphobia or trolling.

Is it really so difficult to think for a moment and replace "branding X group with Y"? When suggesting to brand Jews or gays is obvious trolling, but transgender people are fair game, that shows transphobia. There's nothing else to call it when the people supposed to be enforcing the rules can sit by idly and dismiss trolling against transgender people when an identical statement towards any other group would be actionable. As long as X group is transgender people, it's totally fine!

Well, yeah.

The recognition of transgenders as actual people is, obviously, a recent development within society, and as a result, not everybody is caught up.

Some are confused. Some are bigots. Some can't seem to comprehend it. Some put their religious views forward when making a moderating decision. Some put personal bias forward. It's a social issue that plays into the effectiveness, or rather, ineffectiveness of moderation when dealing with transphobia.

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

Um... that's why you guys are allowed to ask for a second opinion...

And can appeal rulings.

viewtopic.php?f=16&t=263883

I've seen a lot of the above example. Really hard to appeal when, you know, you don't know how to in the first place. In that, if they're objecting to a moderation's action, you shouldn't just shut down the report thread IF you're allowing appeals. Not everyone can make an appeal like a real life lawyer.

There's also a lot of moderation thread reports that goes unreplied, for whatever reason. I won't accept the "mods have lives" argument for this one since sometimes these threads are in the front page and have been unreplied for a day or so.

It is also hard when trying to appeal or ask for the reasoning behind a decision you are told that you are "rules lawyering". A perennial favorite mod cop out.

You are right about the "mods have lives" excuse. If you as a mod do not have the time to do the job then stand down.

[Aurora Novus]

Logging out no. But my private conversations with other members, yeah.

Also, I need moderator permission to log in in a sense. Which in of itself might not seem like a problem, until you encounter the issue where the community might wish for a individual to be a part of it, but the mods deny it. That's incredibly immoral in my eyes.

You choose to be here. You accept the rules.

This isn't a democracy.

I know it's not a democracy.

I'm saying it should be.

Again, pointing out the status quo does not at all influence the argument of whethe ror not it should be changed.

[Luveria]

Is it really so difficult to think for a moment and replace "branding X group with Y"? When suggesting to brand Jews or gays is obvious trolling, but transgender people are fair game, that shows transphobia. There's nothing else to call it when the people supposed to be enforcing the rules can sit by idly and dismiss trolling against transgender people when an identical statement towards any other group would be actionable. As long as X group is transgender people, it's totally fine!

Well, yeah.

The recognition of transgenders as actual people is, obviously, a recent development within society, and as a result, not everybody is caught up.

Some are confused. Some are bigots. Some can't seem to comprehend it. Some put their religious views forward when making a moderating decision. Some put personal bias forward. It's a social issue that plays into the effectiveness, or rather, ineffectiveness of moderation when dealing with transphobia.

I really don't care about that. It's the site rules I care about. It's visible how violating forum rules is actionable, except when it's directed towards transgender people. It doesn't matter if a mod has a bias against transgender people or not, when their job is to enforce the rules consistently. When you have an entire moderation team consistently ignoring trolling against transgender people, for actions that would be actionable against any other group, that shows a problem.

[United Dependencies]

I wouldn't mind some sort of precedents being set with regards to what counts and doesn't count as a rules violation and what punishments are handed down when.

I think it would go a long way towards reducing inconsistency and confusion of what is and isn't against the rules.

[The Black Forrest]

Sure it does. His site; his rules. Guess what you call that?

Pointing out what is does not, in any way, influence the argument of what should be.

I wish I could be Superman. I should be Superman. The problem is I am not and will never have his powers.

How somebody chooses to run their site is all that matters.

[Blasveck]

Well, yeah.

The recognition of transgenders as actual people is, obviously, a recent development within society, and as a result, not everybody is caught up.

Some are confused. Some are bigots. Some can't seem to comprehend it. Some put their religious views forward when making a moderating decision. Some put personal bias forward. It's a social issue that plays into the effectiveness, or rather, ineffectiveness of moderation when dealing with transphobia.

I really don't care about that. It's the site rules I care about. It's visible how violating forum rules is actionable, except when it's directed towards transgender people. It doesn't matter if a mod has a bias against transgender people or not, when their job is to enforce the rules consistently. When you have an entire moderation team consistently ignoring trolling against transgender people, for actions that would be actionable against any other group, that shows a problem.

It is a problem. Nobody said it wasn't.

The problem is that since some mods may or may not have a bias for or against transgender people, that their rulings tend to be inconsistent concerning the enforcement of the site rules.

That's all I'm saying.

[Grenartia]

Well, yeah.

The recognition of transgenders as actual people is, obviously, a recent development within society, and as a result, not everybody is caught up.

Some are confused. Some are bigots. Some can't seem to comprehend it. Some put their religious views forward when making a moderating decision. Some put personal bias forward. It's a social issue that plays into the effectiveness, or rather, ineffectiveness of moderation when dealing with transphobia.

I really don't care about that. It's the site rules I care about. It's visible how violating forum rules is actionable, except when it's directed towards transgender people. It doesn't matter if a mod has a bias against transgender people or not, when their job is to enforce the rules consistently. When you have an entire moderation team consistently ignoring trolling against transgender people, for actions that would be actionable against any other group, that shows a problem.

Quite.

[Edlichbury]

viewtopic.php?f=16&t=263883

I've seen a lot of the above example. Really hard to appeal when, you know, you don't know how to in the first place. In that, if they're objecting to a moderation's action, you shouldn't just shut down the report thread IF you're allowing appeals. Not everyone can make an appeal like a real life lawyer.

There's also a lot of moderation thread reports that goes unreplied, for whatever reason. I won't accept the "mods have lives" argument for this one since sometimes these threads are in the front page and have been unreplied for a day or so.

It is also hard when trying to appeal or ask for the reasoning behind a decision you are told that you are "rules lawyering". A perennial favorite mod cop out.

You are right about the "mods have lives" excuse. If you as a mod do not have the time to do the job then stand down.

Let's also remember the response to a question if moderator's rulings would actually apply to moderators themselves:
"Attempting to rules-laywer and get around the rules tends to be viewed rather dimly."
That in response to: "Will the mods actually uphold that for themselves as well as posters?"
It's pretty hard to expect anything when the mods outright admit they will not try to enforce their own rulings consistently.

[Edlichbury]

I really don't care about that. It's the site rules I care about. It's visible how violating forum rules is actionable, except when it's directed towards transgender people. It doesn't matter if a mod has a bias against transgender people or not, when their job is to enforce the rules consistently. When you have an entire moderation team consistently ignoring trolling against transgender people, for actions that would be actionable against any other group, that shows a problem.

It is a problem. Nobody said it wasn't.

The problem is that since some mods may or may not have a bias for or against transgender people, that their rulings tend to be inconsistent concerning the enforcement of the site rules.

That's all I'm saying.

If certain mods actually are biased against transgendered people and will have this carry over into rulings, they should not be moderators anymore.

[The Black Forrest]

You choose to be here. You accept the rules.

This isn't a democracy.

I know it's not a democracy.

I'm saying it should be.

Again, pointing out the status quo does not at all influence the argument of whethe ror not it should be changed.

I have seen mods by elections. They turn into popularity contests and create a mod staff which has infighting. Fighting mods may be amusing but then end result is far worst then what we have here.

[Aurora Novus]

Pointing out what is does not, in any way, influence the argument of what should be.

I wish I could be Superman. I should be Superman. The problem is I am not and will never have his powers.

How somebody chooses to run their site is all that matters.

Indeed. And I am expressing my views on how I think someone should choose to run their site.

If you're not interested in exploring that idea, you are under no obligation to post in this topic.

[Divair]

I really don't care about that. It's the site rules I care about. It's visible how violating forum rules is actionable, except when it's directed towards transgender people. It doesn't matter if a mod has a bias against transgender people or not, when their job is to enforce the rules consistently. When you have an entire moderation team consistently ignoring trolling against transgender people, for actions that would be actionable against any other group, that shows a problem.

It is a problem. Nobody said it wasn't.

The problem is that since some mods may or may not have a bias for or against transgender people, that their rulings tend to be inconsistent concerning the enforcement of the site rules.

That's all I'm saying.

Mods? Bias? Impossible!

[Tahar Joblis]

So singling out 4 moderators who would subsequently have a conflict of interest in making rulings against you sounds less safe than letting all the moderators guess whether you include them in those 4 or not.

Of course, you could review the last thread involving many complaints about moderators, named or as a group, to test your hypothesis.

I didn't say that saying "I hate four moderators" was an any better way to go about it. And it isn't. Trying to name and shame people without thinking to inform the people who have authority to do something about it accomplishes nothing. Talking about which moderators you think would go accomplishes nothing.

I think it has been demonstrated that management is indeed responsive to the will of the people.

If you can make a good case for why someone should no longer be a moderator, it may well result in them ceasing to be a moderator.

[Luveria]

I really don't care about that. It's the site rules I care about. It's visible how violating forum rules is actionable, except when it's directed towards transgender people. It doesn't matter if a mod has a bias against transgender people or not, when their job is to enforce the rules consistently. When you have an entire moderation team consistently ignoring trolling against transgender people, for actions that would be actionable against any other group, that shows a problem.

It is a problem. Nobody said it wasn't.

The problem is that since some mods may or may not have a bias for or against transgender people, that their rulings tend to be inconsistent concerning the enforcement of the site rules.

That's all I'm saying.

Oh it's not inconsistent at all when it comes to rulings against transgender people. At worst, the mods will say the trolling is an entirely valid opinion when saying it about any other group would be actionable. At best, the mods will remove a slur such as "tranny" directed intentionally at a transgender poster, with the mods brushing it off as an honest mistake not even worthy of an unofficial warning. Yes that's an actual event that happened.

[Blasveck]

It is a problem. Nobody said it wasn't.

The problem is that since some mods may or may not have a bias for or against transgender people, that their rulings tend to be inconsistent concerning the enforcement of the site rules.

That's all I'm saying.

If certain mods actually are biased against transgendered people and will have this carry over into rulings, they should not be moderators anymore.

No one will want to admit that they have any bias against anybody.

And besides, who will replace them? I think that is one of, if not the most important, questions that need to be asked and answered, alongside "Which mods need dropping?"

[Aurora Novus]

I know it's not a democracy.

I'm saying it should be.

Again, pointing out the status quo does not at all influence the argument of whethe ror not it should be changed.

I have seen mods by elections. They turn into popularity contests and create a mod staff which has infighting. Fighting mods may be amusing but then end result is far worst then what we have here.

I too have seen mods by election. The result of which was a perfectly functioning community, where individuals actually had power with regards to how the site was run, and there was an overall positive atmosphere because of it. The mods worked perfectly fine together.

[Divair]

If certain mods actually are biased against transgendered people and will have this carry over into rulings, they should not be moderators anymore.

No one will want to admit that they have any bias agains anybody's

And besides, who will replace them? I think that is one of, if not the most important, questions that need to be asked and answered, alongside "Which mods need dropping?"

If mods are dropped, you can simply run another round of nominations & subsequent investigations. Time-consuming, but theoretically worth it.

[The Black Forrest]

I wish I could be Superman. I should be Superman. The problem is I am not and will never have his powers.

How somebody chooses to run their site is all that matters.

Indeed. And I am expressing my views on how I think someone should choose to run their site.

If you're not interested in exploring that idea, you are under no obligation to post in this topic.

So what was that you were saying about democracy?

[Aurora Novus]

Indeed. And I am expressing my views on how I think someone should choose to run their site.

If you're not interested in exploring that idea, you are under no obligation to post in this topic.

So what was that you were saying about democracy?

What about it?