Arguments for moderation policy reform

[The Cat-Tribe]

I'm mostly just spectating here but several of the other mods and I are developing a powerful curiosity about some of the things people are saying re: appeals. We/I have seen it mentioned a few times that there's a worry that the ruling mod has a voice for appeals regarding their rulings. I'm not sure I understand where this comes from and would appreciate it if someone could explain to me what fuels this perception.

Also (and I haven't read everything just yet but), some of these ideas have come up before. There was some mention earlier of bluecoats handling appeals, which is a suggestion I had briefly considered posting to M/A shortly after the group was created. The idea was that Kat, Rep and I would handle appeals and let the other mods sort of "do their thing" and what-have-you. But as I saw it there were some basic problems with the idea so I never actually suggested it: we'd have to add more bluecoats probably, since with three of us, even one being missing would screw the pooch. It would also basically require that bluecoats cease handing out warnings in all but the most clear-cut cases, and I don't want to restrict our function to that degree. In short, it would require that we add more bluecoats whose function would be (at least marginally) limited in terms of forum moderation. That seemed counterproductive to me so I shelved the proposal.

The other thing I've been harping on just about since we got this forum was the use of TG'd warnings. I've asked/suggested this a few times, but we either lack the (code) monkeypower to get it done, or said codemonkeys don't see the benefit and/or it'd be too much hassle. This has frustrated me a few times, but we have to remember that moderating voluntarily and codemonkeying voluntarily are beasts of two completely different stripes. Even [violet] slacks off sometimes.

Thanks for the cordial response and clear indication the Senior Moderators are listening to our ideas (even if some of them may be bad ones).

1. I'm not sure where exactly I got the impression a ruling Mod has a voice in the appeals process. Threads like this suggest they do. I' don't have time to search for something more specific at this time. If you are saying this never happens, great.

2. I'm sure over the many years of NS most of these ideas are not new. Some may still have merit. Some you may be able to tell us why they've been rejected. It would be helpful.

3. Keep lobbying on that TG notification! (I do think even without an automatic solution from the codemonkeys a Mod could just send a TG to the warned poster, but I realize this would take time.)

Take care.

[Bears Armed]

9. There should be a way of notifying by TG posters that get warned. It is (despite posts I've seen to the contrary by Mods) not realistic to expect every poster to keep track of every thread they have posted in idefinitely because they may at some point receive a warning.

Agreed.
However as I understand it -- from earlier threads in Moderation -- the number of warnings that a nation has recived so far is visible on that nation's profile (at least to that nation's player), and the Mods are willing to send TGs explaining what the warnings were for if the players concerned request the information, so as posters should normally be able to check their profiles on a reasonably frequent basis without much trouble there is that way of finding out...

[Muravyets]

I'm mostly just spectating here but several of the other mods and I are developing a powerful curiosity about some of the things people are saying re: appeals. We/I have seen it mentioned a few times that there's a worry that the ruling mod has a voice for appeals regarding their rulings. I'm not sure I understand where this comes from and would appreciate it if someone could explain to me what fuels this perception.

<snip>

Addressing just this, perhaps these are contributing factors:

1. The appeal decision is usually merely delivered, without an accompanying explanation with references to the rules, of how the decision was arrived at.

2. The appeal decision is not signed off on by the mods who reached it, so the person making the appeal does not know who addressed their issue.

3. Every now and then, on very rare occasions, an anomaly happens that raises the question. The most recent example was our most recent argument. I am not trying to restart that at all, but I mention it as a case in point of an anomalous event that creates the appearance of weirdness and raises this belief. In that case, I disputed your ruling and asked for a second opinion from a mod other than you. However, the decision in my favor came from you, the moderator who had made the disputed ruling. You stated that another mod had also considered the matter, but that other mod was never named and never spoke on it, nor were details of how it came to be that you were involved in the review ever given. So whatever happened behind closed doors in the mod lair, what the public saw in front of the closed doors was the moderator who made the disputed ruling appearing to be directly involved in the review of the disputed ruling.

Granted that kind of oddity happens rarely, but it is actually a very bad thing for appearances of consistency, fairness, objectivity, etc., and even though it rarely happens, it undermines confidence in the system. Kind of like how, one little brown water stain on the ceiling might very well be nothing, but it's not unreasonable to suspect there might be a big leak in the roof.

[Galloism]

Melkor, I realize this probably isn't worth a fart in the wind, but a separate appeals board is a damn good idea. They should also not directly warn, ban, or take administrative action except in an urgent situation where no one else is available (porn posting raid, or somesuch).

The board consisting of at least three should also have two long time members on it who are very well capable of splitting hairs. I would nominate Cat-Tribe for one of those, but he has already expressed disinterest (I'll get you yet, CT, you just wait. I got LG, and I can get you).

The post for appeal ruling should be made by one of the appeal moderators, and list majority and dissent appeal mods.

There should also be an explanation for the reason the appeal went a certain way. It doesn't have to be a 50 page dissertation, but a paragraph or two would suffice.

[Glen-Rhodes]

By "in general," I'm not sure if you mean 'in General' or actually 'in general.' That being said, I have a major problem with moderation policy as it applies to the World Assembly. That is this kind of secret, behind-closed-doors debates, where players essentially have little to no participation. Some reasons I believe this policy ought to be ended:

(a) These mod decisions forever affect the World Assembly, as they form a binding precedent. Players deserve to know what is going on in the debate.

(b) Legitimate arguments may not be heard. This leads to dramatic and corrosive debates between mods and players when legality decisions are delivered, but players have legitimate arguments against the decision. The decision might have been different, had mods participated in a civil debate between involved players as part of their own legality ruling process.

(c) It creates a disconnect between mods and players. The secrecy of legality proceedings can breed distrust. Are there dissenting opinions? Is there groupthink? Why are they behind closed doors, anyways; aren't experienced players' opinions valuable? Those are just some things that come to mind. The bottom line is simply that the lack of player interaction with these legality rulings has been a net negative for the World Assembly.

Also, another minor problem I have is that there's seriously no organization to mod rulings. I really wish they would collect them and have some kind of Mod Ruling Archive, so that both future mods and players can look back and see if there are existing precedents.

[Melkor Unchained]

I'm mostly just spectating here but several of the other mods and I are developing a powerful curiosity about some of the things people are saying re: appeals. We/I have seen it mentioned a few times that there's a worry that the ruling mod has a voice for appeals regarding their rulings. I'm not sure I understand where this comes from and would appreciate it if someone could explain to me what fuels this perception.

Also (and I haven't read everything just yet but), some of these ideas have come up before. There was some mention earlier of bluecoats handling appeals, which is a suggestion I had briefly considered posting to M/A shortly after the group was created. The idea was that Kat, Rep and I would handle appeals and let the other mods sort of "do their thing" and what-have-you. But as I saw it there were some basic problems with the idea so I never actually suggested it: we'd have to add more bluecoats probably, since with three of us, even one being missing would screw the pooch. It would also basically require that bluecoats cease handing out warnings in all but the most clear-cut cases, and I don't want to restrict our function to that degree. In short, it would require that we add more bluecoats whose function would be (at least marginally) limited in terms of forum moderation. That seemed counterproductive to me so I shelved the proposal.

The other thing I've been harping on just about since we got this forum was the use of TG'd warnings. I've asked/suggested this a few times, but we either lack the (code) monkeypower to get it done, or said codemonkeys don't see the benefit and/or it'd be too much hassle. This has frustrated me a few times, but we have to remember that moderating voluntarily and codemonkeying voluntarily are beasts of two completely different stripes. Even [violet] slacks off sometimes.

Thanks for the cordial response and clear indication the Senior Moderators are listening to our ideas (even if some of them may be bad ones).

1. I'm not sure where exactly I got the impression a ruling Mod has a voice in the appeals process. Threads like this suggest they do. I' don't have time to search for something more specific at this time. If you are saying this never happens, great.

2. I'm sure over the many years of NS most of these ideas are not new. Some may still have merit. Some you may be able to tell us why they've been rejected. It would be helpful.

3. Keep lobbying on that TG notification! (I do think even without an automatic solution from the codemonkeys a Mod could just send a TG to the warned poster, but I realize this would take time.)

Take care.

Well basically the way it works is that the ruling itself is basically the first mod's 'vote,' and if an appeal is filed he doesn't get a second. When an appeal comes up, the mod could choose to reverse himself, but this doesn't usually happen. The mod who ruled might still be active in the subsequent discussion--he's allowed to defend/explain the ruling but he doesn't get a second vote. In that case, a lot of what was in the final ruling was actually lifted straight from either discussion in M/A or my own emails to ze Boss.

EDIT: So yeah, I guess the ruling mod(s) has a voice, but if others want to take the conversation elsewhere, they always can. Generally mods are only contacted privately en masse when we're looking at firing someone, so I think that part of the problem here seems that my/our(?) ideas on how often mods should be sat out of the conversation vary from yours in both frequency and purpose.

When it comes to appeals, we sometimes want to know what the ruling mod was thinking and/or what led to the decision. If we think of a NS moderation appeal along (roughly!) the same lines as a proper legal one, it becomes pretty silly to suggest that the 'defendant' (in this case the ruling mod) can't defend himself. But in the end consensus, the original ruling mod's decision stands or fails on its own based on the consensus of the other mods.

As for the other ideas, we'll need more time to look over them all but nothing really jumps out at me at present. And yes, I will continue to lobby for TG'd warnings. (There was actually a general amnesty granted a while back for posting past bans, since banned users (obviously) couldn't read the post wherein their ban was announced, and the page that displayed when you tried to load the forum didn't actually explain that the account was banned. I don't think it was publicized particularly well, but we fixed the ban display page pretty quickly.)

The problem essentially stems from our mods having two different levels of access. As it stands right now, a GM could Voice of Mod a player following a FM's warning, but that would be a fairly tedious process in which we have no particular interest. I've actually toyed with suggesting that we do away with FMs vs GMs (thus making us all GMs), but it makes more sense to me to just have a warning-by-TG system that could be triggered by FMs. I always thought our forumside warning notification system was a little inefficient.

[Melkor Unchained]

Melkor, I realize this probably isn't worth a fart in the wind, but a separate appeals board is a damn good idea. They should also not directly warn, ban, or take administrative action except in an urgent situation where no one else is available (porn posting raid, or somesuch).

The board consisting of at least three should also have two long time members on it who are very well capable of splitting hairs. I would nominate Cat-Tribe for one of those, but he has already expressed disinterest (I'll get you yet, CT, you just wait. I got LG, and I can get you).

The post for appeal ruling should be made by one of the appeal moderators, and list majority and dissent appeal mods.

There should also be an explanation for the reason the appeal went a certain way. It doesn't have to be a 50 page dissertation, but a paragraph or two would suffice.

This has pretty much been shot down already. For all the talk about them here, appeals aren't actually a major function of ours in terms of number of tasks so we're not particularly eager to add another layer of bureaucracy to deal with a problem that represents a relatively minor portion of our workload. The idea also likely requires that the two bodies have no contact (which is why they're described as separate), which in turn would require our Rules of Engagement to prove a negative. Since we couldn't ever prove to your or even our satisfaction that the two groups never collaborated or commiserated, it's another headache we don't need.

[Laerod]

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.

The difference between trollbaiting, flamebaiting, and trolling has always been a bit blurry to me. I've always felt that one category is a bit superfluous and could easily be consolidated in one of the other two to avoid confusion. I mean, flamebaiting is already "in the same context of trolling but with flamebaiting it's just the one person," so it really comes across as the same rule violation to me.

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 would actually argue the opposite of this, really.

I believe that more people should be allowed to enter, insofar as they have pertinent information to include. The issue is that fact-finder regardless, there will be bias between all three parties: the reporter, the reported, and the fact-finder. For example, if there is an issue between Nation A for rule violation by Nation B, and the fact-finder gets the information, what if there is bias involved in all three members? I trust in people attempting to be as non-biased as possible, but ultimately whether people can register that bias is a different question altogether, and therefore I believe that people, even if not directly affected, should be allowed to chime in any pertinent information should it be relevant to the topic.

The issue, I would see with that is that it may open up flood gates to people who may be doing the 'notamod' suggestions that used to be fairly notorious earlier in the year (and from what I see, can still be a problem if left unchecked), but I would argue that if it remains contextually topical, then rulings would benefit in terms of their objectivity the more people provide pertinent information. Of course, implementation of this would require some time, I would gander, and it could lead to fairly difficult definition of what is, or isn't appropriate or inappropriate contextually topical information.

Of course, this is theoretical, and could play out in reality much worse, and I'm sure a few of my mod co-workers would not agree with the possible worst scenario that could come from it.

Building on this, I personally believe "mods only" tags have been obsolete since the stickies against spamming moderation. Their original point, if I recall correctly, was to cut down the clutter in Moderation and keep everyone and their dog from commenting. Given that warnings have been handed out on a more regular basis, it should be clear by now that unless you are the accused, accuser, a mod, or you can link to pertinent information, you have no real business posting in a Moderation thread. Adding a "mods only" tag only ends up discouraging the latter when it could be useful for them to post, so I, for one, believe they have outlived their usefulness.

[Muravyets]

Thanks for the cordial response and clear indication the Senior Moderators are listening to our ideas (even if some of them may be bad ones).

1. I'm not sure where exactly I got the impression a ruling Mod has a voice in the appeals process. Threads like this suggest they do. I' don't have time to search for something more specific at this time. If you are saying this never happens, great.

2. I'm sure over the many years of NS most of these ideas are not new. Some may still have merit. Some you may be able to tell us why they've been rejected. It would be helpful.

3. Keep lobbying on that TG notification! (I do think even without an automatic solution from the codemonkeys a Mod could just send a TG to the warned poster, but I realize this would take time.)

Take care.

Well basically the way it works is that the ruling itself is basically the first mod's 'vote,' and if an appeal is filed he doesn't get a second. When an appeal comes up, the mod could choose to reverse himself, but this doesn't usually happen. The mod who ruled might still be active in the subsequent discussion--he's allowed to defend/explain the ruling but he doesn't get a second vote. In that case, a lot of what was in the final ruling was actually lifted straight from either discussion in M/A or my own emails to ze Boss.

EDIT: So yeah, I guess the ruling mod(s) has a voice, but if others want to take the conversation elsewhere, they always can. Generally mods are only contacted privately en masse when we're looking at firing someone, so it seems to me that part of the problem here seems that my/our(?) ideas on how often mods should be sat out of the conversation vary from yours in both frequency and purpose.

When it comes to appeals, we sometimes want to know what the ruling mod was thinking and/or what led to the decision. If we think of a NS moderation appeal along (roughly!) the same lines as a proper legal one, it becomes pretty silly to suggest that the 'defendant' (in this case the ruling mod) can't defend himself. But in the end consensus, the original ruling mod's decision stands or fails on its own based on the consensus of the other mods.

As for the other ideas, we'll need more time to look over them all but nothing really jumps out at me at present. And yes, I will continue to lobby for TG'd warnings. (There was actually a general amnesty granted a while back for posting past bans, since banned users (obviously) couldn't read the post wherein their ban was announced, and the page that displayed when you tried to load the forum didn't actually explain that the account was banned. I don't think it was publicized particularly well, but we fixed the ban display page pretty quickly.)

The problem essentially stems from our mods having two different levels of access. As it stands right now, a GM could Voice of Mod a player following a FM's warning, but that would be a fairly tedious process in which we have no particular interest. I've actually toyed with suggesting that we do away with FMs vs GMs (thus making us all GMs), but it makes more sense to me to just have a warning-by-TG system that could be triggered by FMs. I always thought our forumside warning notification system was a little inefficient.

The ruling mod having a voice in the process of appeal on his/her own ruling is the exact problem. The mod who made the ruling should not be allowed to defend his/her argument to the appeal mods, if the appealing player is not also allowed to present their counter argument to the appealing mods in the same discussion.

Rather, the appeal mods should only judge the record of what happened at the time. This means that when a mod makes a ruling, their post should include the following: The ruling and/or penalty being assessed against the player, a link to the exact rule(s) the player violated, a paragraph or so on the mod's reasoning of why that action violated that rule and why they got that particular penalty. Many mods already do that or close to it. All mods should do it.

Then if the player appeals the ruling, the mods who review the appeal should look ONLY at the record of the event, and the argument of the ruling mod presented at the time of the ruling. The ruling mod should not be allowed to benefit from the extra time to think up plausible justifications for his/her ruling - not if the player doesn't get the same advantage. It's simply that other moderators should be able to look at the original posts that were ruled on and either reach the same conclusion and uphold the ruling, or reach a different conclusion and amend or overturn the ruling.

Considering that it has been stated many, many times by moderators that great weight and trust is given to the judgment of moderators, it seems the least the mod team could do for fairness would be not to give their team mates yet another advantage over players in defending disputed rulings.

[Melkor Unchained]

Well basically the way it works is that the ruling itself is basically the first mod's 'vote,' and if an appeal is filed he doesn't get a second. When an appeal comes up, the mod could choose to reverse himself, but this doesn't usually happen. The mod who ruled might still be active in the subsequent discussion--he's allowed to defend/explain the ruling but he doesn't get a second vote. In that case, a lot of what was in the final ruling was actually lifted straight from either discussion in M/A or my own emails to ze Boss.

EDIT: So yeah, I guess the ruling mod(s) has a voice, but if others want to take the conversation elsewhere, they always can. Generally mods are only contacted privately en masse when we're looking at firing someone, so it seems to me that part of the problem here seems that my/our(?) ideas on how often mods should be sat out of the conversation vary from yours in both frequency and purpose.

When it comes to appeals, we sometimes want to know what the ruling mod was thinking and/or what led to the decision. If we think of a NS moderation appeal along (roughly!) the same lines as a proper legal one, it becomes pretty silly to suggest that the 'defendant' (in this case the ruling mod) can't defend himself. But in the end consensus, the original ruling mod's decision stands or fails on its own based on the consensus of the other mods.

As for the other ideas, we'll need more time to look over them all but nothing really jumps out at me at present. And yes, I will continue to lobby for TG'd warnings. (There was actually a general amnesty granted a while back for posting past bans, since banned users (obviously) couldn't read the post wherein their ban was announced, and the page that displayed when you tried to load the forum didn't actually explain that the account was banned. I don't think it was publicized particularly well, but we fixed the ban display page pretty quickly.)

The problem essentially stems from our mods having two different levels of access. As it stands right now, a GM could Voice of Mod a player following a FM's warning, but that would be a fairly tedious process in which we have no particular interest. I've actually toyed with suggesting that we do away with FMs vs GMs (thus making us all GMs), but it makes more sense to me to just have a warning-by-TG system that could be triggered by FMs. I always thought our forumside warning notification system was a little inefficient.

The ruling mod having a voice in the process of appeal on his/her own ruling is the exact problem...

I gathered this was the perception, but I believe we've consciously repudiated that idea. If a particular procedure or appeal is serious enough, a mod could certainly be shut out of the discussion, but that we should do it for every appeal? I don't see the logic in that. It seems almost to me as if these changes would turn the appeals process into instruments to 'punish' mods for every ruling of theirs that is overturned. I suspect that's another area where we differ, since the only situation I could think of where I'd want to sit someone out would be if we had already all but decided to take them off staff. For standard appeals, the ruling moderator is certainly allowed to explain himself, just like the player is doing with the appeal in the first place.

[Muravyets]

The ruling mod having a voice in the process of appeal on his/her own ruling is the exact problem...

I gathered this was the perception, but I believe we've consciously repudiated that idea. If a particular procedure or appeal is serious enough, a mod could certainly be shut out of the discussion, but that we should do it for every appeal? I don't see the logic in that. It seems almost to me as if these changes would turn the appeals process into instruments to 'punish' mods for every ruling of theirs that is overturned. I suspect that's another area where we differ, since the only situation I could think of where I'd want to sit someone out would be if we had already all but decided to take them off staff. For standard appeals, the ruling moderator is certainly allowed to explain himself, just like the player is doing with the appeal in the first place.

Reading and responding to whole posts in which the reasoning is explained might help you to see said logic, but as the old saying goes, one can lead a horse to water...

And yes, I understand what IS the existing system. The existing system is flawed. If you disagree, fine, but simply telling me what the existing system is, is not going to convince me it's fine, considering all the effort I and others have gone to in explaining why it isn't and how it could be made so.

But I knew when I started I'd be wasting my time. I can't regret the effort though -- at least, I shouldn't.

[The Cat-Tribe]

Thanks for the cordial response and clear indication the Senior Moderators are listening to our ideas (even if some of them may be bad ones).

1. I'm not sure where exactly I got the impression a ruling Mod has a voice in the appeals process. Threads like this suggest they do. I' don't have time to search for something more specific at this time. If you are saying this never happens, great.

2. I'm sure over the many years of NS most of these ideas are not new. Some may still have merit. Some you may be able to tell us why they've been rejected. It would be helpful.

3. Keep lobbying on that TG notification! (I do think even without an automatic solution from the codemonkeys a Mod could just send a TG to the warned poster, but I realize this would take time.)

Take care.

Well basically the way it works is that the ruling itself is basically the first mod's 'vote,' and if an appeal is filed he doesn't get a second. When an appeal comes up, the mod could choose to reverse himself, but this doesn't usually happen. The mod who ruled might still be active in the subsequent discussion--he's allowed to defend/explain the ruling but he doesn't get a second vote. In that case, a lot of what was in the final ruling was actually lifted straight from either discussion in M/A or my own emails to ze Boss.

EDIT: So yeah, I guess the ruling mod(s) has a voice, but if others want to take the conversation elsewhere, they always can. Generally mods are only contacted privately en masse when we're looking at firing someone, so I think that part of the problem here seems that my/our(?) ideas on how often mods should be sat out of the conversation vary from yours in both frequency and purpose.

When it comes to appeals, we sometimes want to know what the ruling mod was thinking and/or what led to the decision. If we think of a NS moderation appeal along (roughly!) the same lines as a proper legal one, it becomes pretty silly to suggest that the 'defendant' (in this case the ruling mod) can't defend himself. But in the end consensus, the original ruling mod's decision stands or fails on its own based on the consensus of the other mods.

As for the other ideas, we'll need more time to look over them all but nothing really jumps out at me at present. And yes, I will continue to lobby for TG'd warnings. (There was actually a general amnesty granted a while back for posting past bans, since banned users (obviously) couldn't read the post wherein their ban was announced, and the page that displayed when you tried to load the forum didn't actually explain that the account was banned. I don't think it was publicized particularly well, but we fixed the ban display page pretty quickly.)

The problem essentially stems from our mods having two different levels of access. As it stands right now, a GM could Voice of Mod a player following a FM's warning, but that would be a fairly tedious process in which we have no particular interest. I've actually toyed with suggesting that we do away with FMs vs GMs (thus making us all GMs), but it makes more sense to me to just have a warning-by-TG system that could be triggered by FMs. I always thought our forumside warning notification system was a little inefficient.

Thanks for the thoughtful response, the bolded passages, however, are problematic.

If you want to analogize to the legal system, you are totally off-base. If a judge makes a decision and it is appealed, the judge whose decision is being appealed has no say and no participation whatsoever in the appeals process. The decision made by the judge stands on its on and/or on the reasons given by the judge to go with the decision. (To make your legal analogy worse, all parties involved -- unlike the judge -- are supposed to heard at the appellate level.)

If that is a problem in these forums, it is only because Mod rulings often aren't really accompanied by an explanation of why the ruling was made. Other Mods should not have to secretly consult the ruling Mod behind the scenes to find out "what the ruling mod was thinking and/or what led to the decision." To the contrary, the idea that such reason is kept from the parties involved in the first place and only revealed in the Sekrit Mod Cave is problematic in and of itself.

With all due respect, I find it bizarre that you consider a challenge to a Mod's ruling as turning that Mod into a "defendant" and akin to asking for that Mod to be fired!!! Saying "hey, I think you made a mistake, can another Mod look at this" is not impuning the Mod that ruled or calling for anyone's dismissal. Nor is a GHR appeal of a specific ruling. (And, in the thread I linked above, it was indicated that Mods are often consulted en masse or at least in significant portion to decide upon second opinions or appeals.)

Just as in my career as a lawyer I might appear in front of a judge, get a bad ruling, have to appeal that ruling, and then appear in front of the same judge, the whole process was not considered personal, but merely an attempt by everybody to get things right. Just as players can and should be expected to try "be nice to each other," Mods should be able to try to be professional and not take every challenged ruling or criticism personally. (I know that is easier said than done, but that is part of why I wouldn't want to be in your shoes. )

Thanks.

[The Cat-Tribe]

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.

The difference between trollbaiting, flamebaiting, and trolling has always been a bit blurry to me. I've always felt that one category is a bit superfluous and could easily be consolidated in one of the other two to avoid confusion. I mean, flamebaiting is already "in the same context of trolling but with flamebaiting it's just the one person," so it really comes across as the same rule violation to me.

I would actually argue the opposite of this, really.

I believe that more people should be allowed to enter, insofar as they have pertinent information to include. The issue is that fact-finder regardless, there will be bias between all three parties: the reporter, the reported, and the fact-finder. For example, if there is an issue between Nation A for rule violation by Nation B, and the fact-finder gets the information, what if there is bias involved in all three members? I trust in people attempting to be as non-biased as possible, but ultimately whether people can register that bias is a different question altogether, and therefore I believe that people, even if not directly affected, should be allowed to chime in any pertinent information should it be relevant to the topic.

The issue, I would see with that is that it may open up flood gates to people who may be doing the 'notamod' suggestions that used to be fairly notorious earlier in the year (and from what I see, can still be a problem if left unchecked), but I would argue that if it remains contextually topical, then rulings would benefit in terms of their objectivity the more people provide pertinent information. Of course, implementation of this would require some time, I would gander, and it could lead to fairly difficult definition of what is, or isn't appropriate or inappropriate contextually topical information.

Of course, this is theoretical, and could play out in reality much worse, and I'm sure a few of my mod co-workers would not agree with the possible worst scenario that could come from it.

Building on this, I personally believe "mods only" tags have been obsolete since the stickies against spamming moderation. Their original point, if I recall correctly, was to cut down the clutter in Moderation and keep everyone and their dog from commenting. Given that warnings have been handed out on a more regular basis, it should be clear by now that unless you are the accused, accuser, a mod, or you can link to pertinent information, you have no real business posting in a Moderation thread. Adding a "mods only" tag only ends up discouraging the latter when it could be useful for them to post, so I, for one, believe they have outlived their usefulness.

FWIW, I think the idea that third parties with substantive (non-spammy, non- "me too") comments about a ruling or a complaint can't post in a Moderation thread is wrong. I understand it makes things tidier and avoids Mods having to deal with arguments from the likes of me. Of course, that is part of why I think it is a bad policy.

I don't expect it to change, however.

I do agree "Mods Only" is obsolete, given the new rules that essentially limit posts in Moderation to those:

1) Bringing up a matter of concern with Moderation
2) Reporting a rules violation
3) Linking to a relevant rule or relevant post
4) Answering a report about yourself

[The Cat-Tribe]

The ruling mod having a voice in the process of appeal on his/her own ruling is the exact problem...

I gathered this was the perception, but I believe we've consciously repudiated that idea. If a particular procedure or appeal is serious enough, a mod could certainly be shut out of the discussion, but that we should do it for every appeal? I don't see the logic in that. It seems almost to me as if these changes would turn the appeals process into instruments to 'punish' mods for every ruling of theirs that is overturned. I suspect that's another area where we differ, since the only situation I could think of where I'd want to sit someone out would be if we had already all but decided to take them off staff. For standard appeals, the ruling moderator is certainly allowed to explain himself, just like the player is doing with the appeal in the first place.

Again, it deeply disturbs me that correcting a Mod's mistake is seen as tantamount to "punishing" the Mod that made the mistake.

I don't think any of the non-Moderation posters see it this way.

That is not how appeals and reversals and viewed in the RL legal system.

I've seen nothing in the way second opinions or appeals are ruled on that indicates the "mistaken Mod" is being punished.

I don't know from where this dangerous mindset comes. And I am worried it strongly implies a bias against correcting mistakes and for rallying behind a ruling at all costs rather than "punish" a Mod who made a simple error.

[The Norwegian Blue]

For standard appeals, the ruling moderator is certainly allowed to explain himself, just like the player is doing with the appeal in the first place.

Except it's quite explicitly not "just like" what the player is doing, and that's precisely the problem. The player gets to state his or her case publicly, and then the mod gets to go back to the "modcave" and argue his or her case as much as he or she likes in privacy without the player having any chance to refute those arguments. That's not in any way, shape, or form the same, and there's no way for that not to fuel perceptions of bias.

Like others have said, if a ruling is valid, it shouldn't need more explanation than was given with the ruling in the first place. In the rare cases where it might, I see no reason that explanation can't be given precisely the same way the player gives his or hers - i.e. not in a private discussion with the mods deciding the appeal - or any reason why a mod would object to the notion that they should sit out decisions connected to themselves. That's just basic common sense. To run with the legal analogy, even in the most trivial of civil law cases, no one would dream of letting either the plaintiff or the defendant hang out with the judge or jury while they deliberate. Even if the decision made in the end is fair in reality, there is simply no way for "the jury thinks the plaintiff should get to come discuss his side of the story with them in private" not to create one hell of a perception of bias.

[The Norwegian Blue]

I gathered this was the perception, but I believe we've consciously repudiated that idea. If a particular procedure or appeal is serious enough, a mod could certainly be shut out of the discussion, but that we should do it for every appeal? I don't see the logic in that. It seems almost to me as if these changes would turn the appeals process into instruments to 'punish' mods for every ruling of theirs that is overturned. I suspect that's another area where we differ, since the only situation I could think of where I'd want to sit someone out would be if we had already all but decided to take them off staff. For standard appeals, the ruling moderator is certainly allowed to explain himself, just like the player is doing with the appeal in the first place.

Again, it deeply disturbs me that correcting a Mod's mistake is seen as tantamount to "punishing" the Mod that made the mistake.

I don't think any of the non-Moderation posters see it this way.

That is not how appeals and reversals and viewed in the RL legal system.

I've seen nothing in the way second opinions or appeals are ruled on that indicates the "mistaken Mod" is being punished.

I don't know from where this dangerous mindset comes. And I am worried it strongly implies a bias against correcting mistakes and for rallying behind a ruling at all costs rather than "punish" a Mod who made a simple error.

^ This. A major purpose of these suggestions, in my mind, is to get rid of the mindset that we are in some sort of conflict of "moderators versus players." There's no "versus." Sometimes mods make mistakes. Sometimes players do, too. Both groups are human and this is to be expected. If Mod Bob makes a bad ruling and warns someone who shouldn't have been warned, the point of overturning that warning isn't to say, "Mod Bob, you're a BAD mod! BAD!" It is, quite simply, to remove the warning from the person who shouldn't have been warned. It would certainly be nice if Mod Bob could follow that up by saying, "By the way, sorry I warned you. I misread your post/I was in a bad mood that day/I'm good friends with the person who reported you and I let that color my judgment/I have multiple personalities and one of them is kind of a jerk to people whose screennames beghin with Q/whatever" - but that, too, is not a punishment, that's being a reasonable adult who owns up to it when he makes a mistake. I don't honestly see where the whole "punishment" thing came from at all.

[Anagonia]

Oh Hai.

I was debating about a few things and unsure whether to post this or not, as I'm not a contributing Moderator or Administrator on these forums and as I very WELL know people do things extremely differently from place to place. However I do have a suggestion. The one thing that I tell my fellow Admins and Mods to do within the Kromulan Kollective (a group I actively Admin and Own on Skype) is when a member comes forward asking for information on a previous situation that we, even myself, are obligated to inform them fully and unconditionally an unbiased review. Every decision we do concerning members and staff is firstly done by due process with the decision at hand and then we go back and do a review of our performance to check if we followed standard procedure.

Every decision is not set into stone with the exception of decisions done by our Council of Staff. These decisions done by the staff are mainly for active policy and I have the final say on them if they pertain to the workings of the group. Rightfully I chose to allow my staff to run the group as they see fit with LITTLE interference from myself. Yet I still ask reports of what has happened, what was decided, and I fully expect my staff to be open and honest with members and guests from other groups.

This policy of unbiased open review has proved extremely fruitful and has lead to the formation of a healthy if not sometimes quiet community. We've had our times of hell when some staff completely disagreed with my policies and left on their own accord and we've had our up times. It is not a policy for everyone, of course, as it requires the staff member to divulge information concerning a decision and why they personally made it. I just believe that if it works for us as I've seen it work dozens of times, I believe it may do well here too.

My Co-Admin once questioned my decision to do the policy this way. I reminded here that, of course, final decisions are left up to the Staff concerning the situation at hand and can choose to listen to the members for sane and rational advice. However when it comes to constructing a community that trusts those that watch over the inner works, it would be better to have people in charge who actually cared about being open and honest. This policy, as she and I have seen over the past two years, has worked wonderfully.

This is just my suggestion and I thought it may do some good here. I assure you I am not suggesting this based on any previous decisions or whatnot, just simply that it's something that worked for my staff and members and could work for your staff and members.

Thank you for listening.

In Summary
-I suggested a Policy of Active Participation. Meaning that Staff Members will feel more obligated to explain a situation and their decisions through a process that is best for a forum of this size. That I termed this policy "Unbiased Open Review" because of the way the Kollective enacts it when a situation is of questionable taste.
-I gave examples of how I operate my group and how it relates to the situation at hand.
-I gave an example of my Staff who actively participates in my group whom allow themselves to be subject to scrutiny.
-I explained that a Moderator and Admins decision should rightfully be lastly up to them, but that it does help to understand the situation fully from all sides through a system of Unbiased Open Review. That once a decision is done, as we do in our Group, it is not set in stone and is subject to change per Staff opinions.
-That, just for references sake if any Mods look at this with an eyebrow raise, this suggestion has nothing to do with any past or current situation as it has been resolved through the proper channels. Just making sure that won't get in the way of my suggestion.

[Neo Art]

I gathered this was the perception, but I believe we've consciously repudiated that idea.

Honestly, the fact that you believe that is part of the problem.

If a particular procedure or appeal is serious enough,

And who exactly decides what is "serious enough" to warrant that? And how are we, the players, to know what the standard is, if it's being applied, or if one exists at all?

a mod could certainly be shut out of the discussion, but that we should do it for every appeal?

Yes.

I don't see the logic in that. It seems almost to me as if these changes would turn the appeals process into instruments to 'punish' mods for every ruling of theirs that is overturned.

As TCT said, if you view appealing your decision as an attempt to punish you, you're personalizing something vastly too much.

I suspect that's another area where we differ, since the only situation I could think of where I'd want to sit someone out would be if we had already all but decided to take them off staff.

Again, the idea that a deciding party shouldn't be able to participate in the review of their own decision...that's a LOT of situations one would want to avoid that, far beyond removal from staff.

The problem, as I'm seeing is, it a "mod culture" of sorts, if you've cultivated the idea of "we won't shut you out unless there's a REAL problem with you" then the act of shutting you out seems personal. I get that. But suggesting you be shut out from the review of your decisions isn't personal, and isn't the problem. The problem is the culture that has developed that suggests being screened from the review of your own process is somehow a BAD thing.

It's not. It's a fundamental idea regarding protecting integrety, transparency, prevention of bias, and every single person who ever worked in any position where their work is subject to review knows it's not personal

The problem's the culture, not the suggestion.

For standard appeals, the ruling moderator is certainly allowed to explain himself, just like the player is doing with the appeal in the first place.

Except it's nothing even remotely like "just" how the player is allowed to. I don't have private, secure and confidential access to the mods. I don't have a channel I can go and talk to whomever is there. I don't get to take part, or even SEE the deliberations of other mods. It's nothing at ALL like the access I have.

And the idea that the suggestion that private communication with the reviewed party is somehow the same as the options players have is just...silly. Sorry, but it really is.

The way the whole system is set up just reeks of "no, we're totally fair, trust us".

And I'm not saying you're not. I'm saying I have absolutely no way to verify that you are. I don't even have a system I can point to that offers me even a modest token to SUGGEST that you are. I'm just supposed to trust you.

To which the end result is...why should I? And again, that's nothing personal on you or any moderator, but why is "don't worry, trust us" a good answer to anything?

And I get why it's insulting, I get why it's annoying. If you're actually being open, honest, and fair, then the suggestion that we cast light on your actions can be bristling, because it seems to imply that we don't trust you and WANT to see more. It's not that, and it's not personal.

I don't want a greater degree of openness because I don't trust you. I want a greater degree of opennes because I don't want to have to. "trust me" is not, never has been, and never will be, a valid method to run a system of decision making and authority.

[Freisharf]

One good way to cut down on "warned for flaming/trolling"

Ask whoever it was directed at "were you offended by this post"

99% of the time the answer will be no. therefore 99% of the time no warning is required.

[Neo Art]

To elaborate a bit on just why I find this such a foreign viewpoint. I make decisions, as I said, I make them in very much the way a moderator does, by reviewing the "rule" (in this case, state and federal law), reviewing the facts (usually gathered by a neutral 3rd party below me) and apply the "rule" to the facts and make a decision. Those decisions are legally binding and carry the force of law, so I get what's involved in making decisions that carry weight.

Those decisions are subject to appeal. I'm not told what the outcome of an appeal is. Most times I'm not even told an appeal has been FILED for. Once the decision leaves my desk I'm completely 100% in the dark as to what happens next. Why? Because it doesn't concern me. My job is simple. Review the fact, review the law, make sure all relevant facts are gathered, and once that's done, make the best decision I can in applying facts to rules, given the information I have available to me at the time.

And once that's done, I'm done. It's off my desk. What happens next is not my concern, not my problem, and not something I think about. I've done my job, to the best of my abilities, and that is my sole responsibility. What happens next isn't a reflection on me, and I don't take it personally.

Appeals are not personal, they're not insulting, they're not punishment. The idea that they are, or they should be, is deeply troubling.

[Praetonia]

The simplest and most effective reform would be to remove most of the "punishments" that are handed out, as well as most of the "crimes". Except for adbots, the most significant "punishment" should be 6 month ban or read-only, and the only thing that should justify it is persistent spam (of the wall of meaningless text kind, not the "that post should be in a different topic/forum" kind). The vast majority of things that are now met with bans or deletions should be dealt with by splitting threads or deleting individual posts. There should be no 'three strikes and you're out' rap sheet record kept forever that aggravates all subsequent "infractions". Banning of any member established in the community should be a decision taken after considerable discussion and requiring the involvement and support of the community. Moderators should be as much as possible part of and indistinguishable from the community: a bolded name may be appropriate, obnoxious bright red text and extensive signatures of titles would definitely not be.

But the bloodsucker moderator class will never voluntarily surrender its power. Like the region, WA and RP game, the moderator game is a competitive aspect of NationStates that the winners have but a great deal of time and effort in to. They will not give up their prizes. Why would they?

[Czardas]

For standard appeals, the ruling moderator is certainly allowed to explain himself, just like the player is doing with the appeal in the first place.

Except it's nothing even remotely like "just" how the player is allowed to. I don't have private, secure and confidential access to the mods. I don't have a channel I can go and talk to whomever is there. I don't get to take part, or even SEE the deliberations of other mods. It's nothing at ALL like the access I have.

Actually, your access in all respects is quite similar. You can go into a private channel to speak with the mods (#themodcave), or contact them individually even more privately through query, e-mail, or TG. Yes, you don't actually have access to our private channel, but all the mod who made the original ruling can do there is the same thing you can do in #themodcave: talk to us and explain why they did what they did.

See, what confuses me slightly is that the four of you have continued to argue against something that doesn't happen. The idea that mods can make decisions on appeals of their own rulings seems to be something of a misinterpretation of what we're saying: while the view of the mod who made the original ruling is considered, just as that of the player appealing it is, neither one has any direct control over the outcome. "Private access" doesn't give the mod an advantage over the player since mods don't have a vote on their own appeals; nor does having the private phone number of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court give you any greater weight in the next case at vote.

One good way to cut down on "warned for flaming/trolling"

Ask whoever it was directed at "were you offended by this post"

99% of the time the answer will be no. therefore 99% of the time no warning is required.

People often do report being offended by statements along the lines of "California sucks" or "The Nazis weren't so bad"; are warnings therefore needed in those cases?

In theory flaming/trolling is based on the flamer's intent to offend, not on whether the flamee was in fact offended. The question "were you offended?" therefore isn't as relevant.

[Neo Art]

Yes, you don't actually have access to our private channel,

Thanks for proving my point.

See, what confuses me slightly is that the four of you have continued to argue against something that doesn't happen.

And yet the reason we keep on arguing it is because we have no assurances, zero, zilp, nada, zilch, that it "doesn't happen" other than...you're word that it doesn't happen.

You're basically saying "no, trust us" and seem terribly confused as to why we think "just trust us" is a poor method of decision making.

And if after all I've said, you still don't understand WHY that is, I really don't know what more I can say, other than continue to be deeply troubled at the constant, ongoing resistance to any suggestion that even hints at the idea that maybe, JUUUUUST maybe, we don't like to be told "no, really, just trust us, it's cool"

Is the idea that I don't want a system predicated on "just trust us" offend you that badly?

The idea that mods can make decisions on appeals of their own rulings seems to be something of a misinterpretation of what we're saying: while the view of the mod who made the original ruling is considered, just as that of the player appealing it is, neither one has any direct control over the outcome. "Private access" doesn't give the mod an advantage over the player since mods don't have a vote on their own appeals;

Because, again, you say so. Whether "private access" does, or does not give an advantage, it exists. That alone is a problem.

We're not, and nobody has, argued that it, as a point of fact creates an advantage. We're arguing that it could. And again, if after all I've said, you still don't understand WHY that is, I really don't know what more I can say

nor does having the private phone number of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court give you any greater weight in the next case at vote.

You MAY want to rethink that analogy because...yeah, exactly how many private calls do you think Roberts takes from parties in a case?

I'm guessing none.

And why do you think that is?

[Katganistan]

Yes, you don't actually have access to our private channel,

Thanks for proving my point.

And we don't have access to private chat channels that players have, or private forums that they create.
So, point?

[Neo Art]

And we don't have access to private chat channels that players have, or private forums that they create.
So, point?

Do these players moderate you on NSG?

Because if not, and I'm pretty sure they don't, I'm utterly and truly baffled as to what point you're trying to make here.