Arguments for moderation policy reform

[Praetonia]

Thanks for proving my point.

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

This is actually a very good point, though for different reasons. There is no tyrant without subjects, and hosting is cheap.

[Czardas]

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

Thanks for proving my point.

Okay, what do you view as the primary difference between you contacting the mods privately to explain why you are appealing a decision, and me contacting the mods privately to explain why I made a decision?

Apart from the fact that I'm a moderator and you're not, that is, since when one of my decisions is under question I cannot rule on it -- rendering the issue of authority moot in this case.

[Vonners]

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.

I've tried to use the modcave irc twice...there were mods there but never responded to my post/chat. I waited a good ten to fifteen minutes with no answer. In other words - pointless.

e-mail ...I don't know what your (or any other mods) email address is.

TG's - I kept reading that TG's are useless due to the sheer volume of TG's you (mods) have to deal with...so use the GHR instead.

[Neo Art]

Thanks for proving my point.

Okay, what do you view as the primary difference between you contacting the mods privately to explain why you are appealing a decision, and me contacting the mods privately to explain why I made a decision?

Apart from the fact that I'm a moderator and you're not, that is, since when one of my decisions is under question I cannot rule on it -- rendering the issue of authority moot in this case.

The same reason we dont ask judges to weigh in on appeals of their rulings. If you did you job right there us absolutely nothing further you can add to the discussion.

YOU had the opportunity to defend your ruling when you made it. I have no opportunity to argue against your ruling until after it is made. Hence an appeal.

Why should you have an opportunity to justify your position twice, When I can only argue against it once?

Your decision stands or falls on the record you leave when you made it. If you failed to do that then you failed to do your job.

Let me ask you. Why should you be afforded the opportunity to explain your ruling a second time. In private?

[Czardas]

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.

I've tried to use the modcave irc twice...there were mods there but never responded to my post/chat. I waited a good ten to fifteen minutes with no answer. In other words - pointless.

Heh. I've tried to encourage the other mods to use it more often, but it doesn't seem to stick. <.< In theory, though, that's the best way to contact the mods for one-on-one communication. (Stalk, /msg, or /query people if no-one's around to answer.)

e-mail ...I don't know what your (or any other mods) email address is.

The answer is in the OSRS.

TG's - I kept reading that TG's are useless due to the sheer volume of TG's you (mods) have to deal with...so use the GHR instead.

Depends on the mod -- some answer TGs, others tend to ignore them. It's a bit hit-and-miss, actually (I know I'm pretty bad about answering for instance) which is why GHRs are recommended; I wouldn't suggest telegrams as the primary method of trying to contact a specific mod, but it's still available in most cases.

[Bluth Corporation]

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?

The difference, of course, that in those private chatrooms or forums they're not carrying out discussions on how best to punish you for actions taken on their public forums (if any).

[Vonners]

I've tried to use the modcave irc twice...there were mods there but never responded to my post/chat. I waited a good ten to fifteen minutes with no answer. In other words - pointless.

Heh. I've tried to encourage the other mods to use it more often, but it doesn't seem to stick. <.< In theory, though, that's the best way to contact the mods for one-on-one communication. (Stalk, /msg, or /query people if no-one's around to answer.)

e-mail ...I don't know what your (or any other mods) email address is.

The answer is in the OSRS.

TG's - I kept reading that TG's are useless due to the sheer volume of TG's you (mods) have to deal with...so use the GHR instead.

Depends on the mod -- some answer TGs, others tend to ignore them. It's a bit hit-and-miss, actually (I know I'm pretty bad about answering for instance) which is why GHRs are recommended; I wouldn't suggest telegrams as the primary method of trying to contact a specific mod, but it's still available in most cases.

thanks re emails!

re TG's...pretty much why I don't bother...and its not a biggie really...not using TG's...

re the cave...really it should be used as it is pretty instant and should help in responding to those rather horrible pic spam attacks...

[Katganistan]

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.

Rather, I am saying that trying to make as if there is a problem with having a private area to discuss things is odd to me. As it seems legal procedure is very popular in this thread: judges have sidebars and discussions in chambers that do not involve the jury, or the witnesses, or the people in the gallery. They involve the judge and the appointed legal experts. And after the judges have heard the objection or have ascertained the bit of information that pertained to the the discussion, they explain in varying detail what they decided. Do people insist on Court TV cameras being in chambers? Do the folks sitting in the gallery get to demand what the lawyers said in sidebar? For that matter, does anyone at all get to hear what a jury is discussing when they are trying to come up with a verdict?

[Bluth Corporation]

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.

Rather, I am saying that trying to make as if there is a problem with having a private area to discuss things is odd to me.[/quote]
If it's just for idle chatter, of course not. But that's not what we're talking about here.

judges have sidebars and discussions in chambers that . . . involve the judge and the appointed legal experts.

In other words, representatives of both sides.

[Neo Art]

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.

Rather, I am saying that trying to make as if there is a problem with having a private area to discuss things is odd to me. As it seems legal procedure is very popular in this thread: judges have sidebars and discussions in chambers that do not involve the jury, or the witnesses, or the people in the gallery. They involve the judge and the appointed legal experts. And after the judges have heard the objection or have ascertained the bit of information that pertained to the the discussion, they explain in varying detail what they decided. Do people insist on Court TV cameras being in chambers? Do the folks sitting in the gallery get to demand what the lawyers said in sidebar? For that matter, does anyone at all get to hear what a jury is discussing when they are trying to come up with a verdict?

Exactly what do you think happens if a judge invites one party to private confrence without inviting the other?

Exactly what do you think happens if an appeallate authority consults with the judge who made the original ruling?

That's malpractice in a big way.

[Muravyets]

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?

You don't have access to my house, either. So, point? We're talking about what happens in NS and whatever private bitching about each other we may do off site either behind each other's back or to each other's faces is irrelevant. The difference between the private mod meetings and conversations between players off site that you might not be included in is that your private conversations in mod mode have a direct effect on players, and are meant to. Our private chats are not and do not.

[Neo Art]

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

You don't have access to my house, either. So, point? We're talking about what happens in NS and whatever private bitching about each other we may do off site either behind each other's back or to each other's faces isnsg. irrelevant.

And I am truly unsure how we are to believe that moderation is the least bit interested in hearing concerns when the response is "well you get to talk about us behind our back". Yes I suppose we do. But what theoretical comments in a hypothetical space I make about someone here in no way relates to moderation of nsg.

If you feel you are treated unfairly somewhere else take it up there. What non mods say about mods is irrelevant to the topic of moderating nsg. We aren't mods.

[Muravyets]

I've tried to use the modcave irc twice...there were mods there but never responded to my post/chat. I waited a good ten to fifteen minutes with no answer. In other words - pointless.

Heh. I've tried to encourage the other mods to use it more often, but it doesn't seem to stick. <.< In theory, though, that's the best way to contact the mods for one-on-one communication. (Stalk, /msg, or /query people if no-one's around to answer.)

e-mail ...I don't know what your (or any other mods) email address is.

The answer is in the OSRS.

TG's - I kept reading that TG's are useless due to the sheer volume of TG's you (mods) have to deal with...so use the GHR instead.

Depends on the mod -- some answer TGs, others tend to ignore them. It's a bit hit-and-miss, actually (I know I'm pretty bad about answering for instance) which is why GHRs are recommended; I wouldn't suggest telegrams as the primary method of trying to contact a specific mod, but it's still available in most cases.

So some mods answer TGs, some ignore them. Some mods acknowledge a player in the modcave irc, and some ignore them. I suppose some mods, like other people, will answer an email, while some will ignore it. Doesn't sound like any kind of a system. Doesn't sound like you're following any rules. Doesn't sound like a player can trust in anything mod-related, but should just keep knocking on doors in the hope they'll find the right mod on the right day who will listen to them, and then that the mods who ignored their attempts will not ignore that one mod. Yeah, I "just trust" that. You bet.

[Katganistan]

Rather, I am saying that trying to make as if there is a problem with having a private area to discuss things is odd to me. As it seems legal procedure is very popular in this thread: judges have sidebars and discussions in chambers that do not involve the jury, or the witnesses, or the people in the gallery. They involve the judge and the appointed legal experts. And after the judges have heard the objection or have ascertained the bit of information that pertained to the the discussion, they explain in varying detail what they decided. Do people insist on Court TV cameras being in chambers? Do the folks sitting in the gallery get to demand what the lawyers said in sidebar? For that matter, does anyone at all get to hear what a jury is discussing when they are trying to come up with a verdict?

Exactly what do you think happens if a judge invites one party to private confrence without inviting the other?

Exactly what do you think happens if an appeallate authority consults with the judge who made the original ruling?

That's malpractice in a big way.

The judges in this case are not inviting only one party. A group of moderators, that is, the legal experts, who were not involved in the dispute are invited to the conference. They look at the evidence, they discuss it, they come up with an answer. The original moderator is barred from a vote in the discussion and answers questions if asked.

Rather like a defendant, I'd say.

And again, are cameras allowed in the jury room? Is anyone allowed to hear their discussion before the decision? Because honestly, if this is the argument that people are making, that it should be more like a legal proceeding, and that there should be unlimited transparency, if we're going to be honest, that's not what happens in a courtroom.

[Katganistan]

You don't have access to my house, either. So, point? We're talking about what happens in NS and whatever private bitching about each other we may do off site either behind each other's back or to each other's faces isnsg. irrelevant.

And I am truly unsure how we are to believe that moderation is the least bit interested in hearing concerns when the response is "well you get to talk about us behind our back". Yes I suppose we do. But what theoretical comments in a hypothetical space I make about someone here in no way relates to moderation of nsg.

If you feel you are treated unfairly somewhere else take it up there. What non mods say about mods is irrelevant to the topic of moderating nsg. We aren't mods.

Interesting. Where did a moderator say anything about "well you get to talk about us behind our back"?
I do believe that is Muravyets making that comment in the post you quoted.

[Muravyets]

And I am truly unsure how we are to believe that moderation is the least bit interested in hearing concerns when the response is "well you get to talk about us behind our back". Yes I suppose we do. But what theoretical comments in a hypothetical space I make about someone here in no way relates to moderation of nsg.

If you feel you are treated unfairly somewhere else take it up there. What non mods say about mods is irrelevant to the topic of moderating nsg. We aren't mods.

Interesting. Where did a moderator say anything about "well you get to talk about us behind our back"?
I do believe that is Muravyets making that comment in the post you quoted.

Yes, it is me being sarcastic, but your comment was still utterly irrelevant, for the reasons I stated in my finally fully edited (added to) post.

[Czardas]

Why should you have an opportunity to justify your position twice, When I can only argue against it once?

Your decision stands or falls on the record you leave when you made it. If you failed to do that then you failed to do your job.

Let me ask you. Why should you be afforded the opportunity to explain your ruling a second time. In private?

Frequently the reason a decision is appealed is because not enough information is supplied by the mod making the decision. Note the average length of a mod ruling (one line or so: "That's not acceptable. You are warned for flaming. Consult the OSRS to avoid a longer forumban in future.") as compared to court proceedings, where evidence is exhaustingly presented, intent must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, judges write multi-page decisions full of references to legal precedent etc etc. Thus, particularly when the mods disagree with the original ruling, they'll ask the original mod what the hell he was thinking to get a sense of why the decision was made in the first place.

Rulings are not expected to be justified when they are made because, well, there's rarely much to justify. "He called some guy a douchebag, so I warned him for flaming." Rarely is an appealed ruling so straightforward, but if the mod making the ruling thinks it's straightforward, that's about all that will be said until it's called into question.

[Bluth Corporation]

Exactly what do you think happens if a judge invites one party to private confrence without inviting the other?

Exactly what do you think happens if an appeallate authority consults with the judge who made the original ruling?

That's malpractice in a big way.

The judges in this case are not inviting only one party. A group of moderators, that is, the legal experts, who were not involved in the dispute are invited to the conference. They look at the evidence, they discuss it, they come up with an answer. The original moderator is barred from a vote in the discussion and answers questions if asked.

Rather like a defendant, I'd say.

Are you serious? You're comparing the moderator who made the original ruling to the defendant? Seriously?

That's absolutely ludicrous!

The original moderator doesn't stand to be sanctioned in any way if his or her original ruling is overturned, assuming it was the result of an honest error of fact or logic rather than any sort of malice or dishonest intent. He or she isn't the one with anything to lose or gain by it.

The person being ruled against is the one most easily comparable to the "defendant," for the obvious reason that he's the one who stands to lose from the proceedings if a ruling is made that is not in his favor. He's not the one who has "made his ruling and now must stand by it"--he's the one challenging the ruling, so if anyone needs to be present to make a case it's him.

And again, are cameras allowed in the jury room? Is anyone allowed to hear their discussion before the decision? Because honestly, if this is the argument that people are making, that it should be more like a legal proceeding, and that there should be unlimited transparency, if we're going to be honest, that's not what happens in a courtroom.

Again, an absolutely awful analogy, so much so that I have trouble believing that someone with your education and background could honestly think it was legit. The jury room is where decisions are made, sure, but it's not where arguments are presented. All that is being asked is that the arguments being presented, which will later be deliberated upon, are made in public with the individual bringing the appeal having the full opportunity to make his case in public. No one's expecting deliberations to be made in public--but we should certainly be able to make our case in public.

[Czardas]

So some mods answer TGs, some ignore them. Some mods acknowledge a player in the modcave irc, and some ignore them. I suppose some mods, like other people, will answer an email, while some will ignore it. Doesn't sound like any kind of a system. Doesn't sound like you're following any rules. Doesn't sound like a player can trust in anything mod-related, but should just keep knocking on doors in the hope they'll find the right mod on the right day who will listen to them, and then that the mods who ignored their attempts will not ignore that one mod. Yeah, I "just trust" that. You bet.

Well, yeah. There's never a guarantee that someone will be online precisely when you want them to. Or that your message won't be buried under other messages and not noticed unless you call our attention to it later on. I don't see why this counts as some kind of point against moderation. That kind of thing happens all the time.

[Barringtonia]

Even if access were provided to the private channels, where a ruling was contentious people would still assume the Mods are talking to each other, whether by IM or some other means. Where does trust end, perhaps a poster should be housed with every Mod to ensure they're not conversing with each other, bed and board provided by the Mod of course.

The point remains the same, adding another level - either in appeal transparency or opening final deliberations - simply serves to increase Mod workload overall through providing material for people to debate further when that result goes against them.

People have complained for the last 5 years, people will complain for the next 5 years, since that will remain a constant the question becomes: what effect do changes really have? The answer is that they simply add.

My points about rules, I think the current rules are way too long but essentially evidence that constantly asking for clarifications and revisions and greater access to understanding merely lead to a large jumble of possibly contradictory rulings. Perhaps given time I might volunteer myself to prune and/or rewrite the overall rules to make them smaller and simpler and the Mods can edit, unless someone else with a more rigid mind - i.e. anyone - might help, or it's a shared project or something... anyone... Bueller... anyone...?

Actually, the principle ties into the same issue I have on the structure thread - stickies, constantly growing until they become more distracting than they're worth.

[Muravyets]

I feel like I'm back at square 1, only I didn't pass GO and I didn't collect $200.

This has already been covered. We know how you do moderation. How you do moderation is what we see as a problem, and we have explained at length and detail exactly why and how it is a problem and what adjustments we think would fix the problems and exactly how and why they would have that effect. I can't speak for the two lawyers, but I, for one, am not going to explain it all over again. Kindly refer to the thread, thank you. /frustration.

[Muravyets]

So some mods answer TGs, some ignore them. Some mods acknowledge a player in the modcave irc, and some ignore them. I suppose some mods, like other people, will answer an email, while some will ignore it. Doesn't sound like any kind of a system. Doesn't sound like you're following any rules. Doesn't sound like a player can trust in anything mod-related, but should just keep knocking on doors in the hope they'll find the right mod on the right day who will listen to them, and then that the mods who ignored their attempts will not ignore that one mod. Yeah, I "just trust" that. You bet.

Well, yeah. There's never a guarantee that someone will be online precisely when you want them to. Or that your message won't be buried under other messages and not noticed unless you call our attention to it later on. I don't see why this counts as some kind of point against moderation. That kind of thing happens all the time.

So you're admitting that there is no rule and no system that you all follow as a code of How To Be a Moderator in NS? Then is this whole thread about a fictional construct? Should it be moved to an RP forum as we're talking about improving something that doesn't exist?

EDIT: Seriously, if you have zero interest in giving any consideration to what we say, I think continuing would be a waste of our time. Personally, I don't appreciate being asked to answer a question by people who have no interest in the answer. /more frustration.

[The Cat-Tribe]

Exactly what do you think happens if a judge invites one party to private confrence without inviting the other?

Exactly what do you think happens if an appeallate authority consults with the judge who made the original ruling?

That's malpractice in a big way.

The judges in this case are not inviting only one party. A group of moderators, that is, the legal experts, who were not involved in the dispute are invited to the conference. They look at the evidence, they discuss it, they come up with an answer. The original moderator is barred from a vote in the discussion and answers questions if asked.

Rather like a defendant, I'd say.

And again, are cameras allowed in the jury room? Is anyone allowed to hear their discussion before the decision? Because honestly, if this is the argument that people are making, that it should be more like a legal proceeding, and that there should be unlimited transparency, if we're going to be honest, that's not what happens in a courtroom.

With all due respect Kat, you are being disingenuous in several ways.

If you want to make a legal analogy, you utterly fail.

1. The Moderator is not the defendant. He/She is the judge below. As such he/she would never be allowed to participate in the appeal in any facet whatsoever.

2. An appeal is not a trial. It is an appeal. You are mixing and matching legal terms and concepts haphazardly. (For example, there is no jury on appeal.)

3. The "defendant" (actually the "appellant") would be the party who filed the appeal. They would be allowed to present their case and answer questions from the appeals judges.

4. No one has, to my knowledge, called for "unlimited transparency" - so that is a cute strawman.

I thought we were having a productive conversation, that got slightly derailed by Melkor's perception that an appeal is an attempt to "punish" the Mod making the original ruling. I note in all your clever sophistry about flaws in our suggestions (which don't really address our actual suggestions -- with which at least some Melkor agreed), you don't defend that position.

[Barringtonia]

I feel like I'm back at square 1, only I didn't pass GO and I didn't collect $200.

I suspect that were anything even done, we'd all be back here in 6 months time or less with another 'what's to be done about General' debate.

I certainly don't express myself as well as you, Neo or TCT, for example, but the intrinsic point is that none of this will reduce complaints, since complaints will happen no matter what.

[Katganistan]

Interesting. Where did a moderator say anything about "well you get to talk about us behind our back"?
I do believe that is Muravyets making that comment in the post you quoted.

Yes, it is me being sarcastic, but your comment was still utterly irrelevant, for the reasons I stated in my finally fully edited (added to) post.

How so? Neo Art pointed out we have a private channel. So do other players. How is that irrelevant?