Arguments for moderation policy reform

[Lunatic Goofballs]

In private? No. I also don't have a private personal conversation with the accusers or angered players in private to get their perspective. For two reasons; first, when wearing the mod hat, I prefer to discuss moderation with players on the public record. Second, if it has reached the review stage, the accused and accusers have already made their cases publicly. In the difficult cases I mentioned above, the problem isn't usually the accused or accuser's perspective, it's more often stepping out of mine.

I see, you apply a double standard, and then you only seek guidance as to one way of thinking. You allow a type of discourse with moderators that you do not allow with players, even though you earlier argued that we should all remember that you're also players just like us and that you think of us as equals. And you only seek to get out of your perspective and into the other mod's but not into that of the offended/ing player.

I don't think you do see. I don't apply a double standard to players and moderators. I apply two legitimate standards to the makers of a case and the tools to help me decide it.

[Neo Art]

I am also vaguely bothered by the fact that the most common and pressing concern from.moderators, when faced with possible policy changes, is "what is good for the moderators?" And not "what's best for the forum?"

Seriously. If the primary objection is "But it makes my job harder...." again, grow a skin. You volunteered to help better the community, not the other way around

[Glen-Rhodes]

*Totally dropping in while working, and Mura, I now have STOP! In the Name of Love! stuck in my head! *
Generally what we're concerned about is Mod shopping. If it ends up with players assuming Mod A is much, hmm, nicer than Mod B it becomes an issue when we see posts with "I refuse to accept Mod B's judgement, I want Mod A to rule".

*Goes back to work*

I suppose that makes sense in cases where a single moderator is making a ruling. (Which is probably every forum but the WA.*) I'm not sure if I'm convinced that would be such a big problem. Players, after all, don't have a choice in which mod they deal with; this would only really be a problem if they did.

*And speaking of the WA! This wouldn't be a problem at all, since it seems that all decisions are discussed and debated amongst the qualified mods anyways.

[Neo Art]

So then why does the moderator get an additional chance to make his or her case privately during the appeal process?

He's not making his or her case. He's explaining his decision. If I'm having trouble understanding it, talking to the original moderator can help. Once I understand the case, I can better rule on it.

I will ask again. What could possibly be said that couldn't have been said the first time?

[Barringtonia]

In private? No. I also don't have a private personal conversation with the accusers or angered players in private to get their perspective. For two reasons; first, when wearing the mod hat, I prefer to discuss moderation with players on the public record. Second, if it has reached the review stage, the accused and accusers have already made their cases publicly. In the difficult cases I mentioned above, the problem isn't usually the accused or accuser's perspective, it's more often stepping out of mine.

So then why does the moderator get an additional chance to make his or her case privately during the appeal process?

...because they're explaining their reason for the ruling as opposed to whether they're innocent or not. For the poster it's a case of proving themselves innocent of the moderated charge, for the moderator it's a case of explaining their ruling on that charge.

I don't agree with LG that the hardest issues are personal views clouding judgment*, or at least that this isn't the centre of where these issues happen. These issues happen on the borderline of whether something is or isn't a flame, touching the line between a harsh statement and a flame - although that is likely skewed by closeness to the issue, whether mental health or sexual preference as the main causes I remember.

So the posters opinion is generally known - I'm innocent of the charge, or I'm right in the charge - whereas the ruling is a fine line over what constitutes flaming, or whatever the rule-break is but generally it's flaming.

*In that it might be for the moderator but is not generally the cause of major debate on a ruling.

Of course, and I couldn't speak for them but if moderators are going in with a 'my ruling is right and I'll defend it to the death' attitude then that's an issue if it's protocol but I doubt it is, however one reads Kat's, Czard's or Melkor's statements.

[Geniasis]

*Totally dropping in while working, and Mura, I now have STOP! In the Name of Love! stuck in my head! *
Generally what we're concerned about is Mod shopping. If it ends up with players assuming Mod A is much, hmm, nicer than Mod B it becomes an issue when we see posts with "I refuse to accept Mod B's judgement, I want Mod A to rule".

*Goes back to work*

...and?

I mean, what would happen if someone tried to pull that right now? It's not like they have an option of accepting a ruling or not; repeated infractions lead to harsher punishments, no? So if someone doesn't accept Mod B's judgement and continues with that conduct, then it gets punished more severely as repeated offenses presumably already do.

[Geniasis]

So then why does the moderator get an additional chance to make his or her case privately during the appeal process?

...because they're explaining their reason for the ruling as opposed to whether they're innocent or not. For the poster it's a case of proving themselves innocent of the moderated charge, for the moderator it's a case of explaining their ruling on that charge.

As LG said, "if it has reached the review stage, the accused and accusers have already made their cases publicly."

If not to explain their reasoning, then what "case" has the moderator made?

(Note: unlike TCT and Neo Art, I am not a lawyer or an attorney. I have however, been playing Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney as recently as yesterday, however.)

[Muravyets]

This worries me, to be honest. It sounds like there's an expectation of unanimity. That can easily lead to, as it does in real-life, group-think. Mod decisions shouldn't be put forth as a consensus if there isn't a real consensus. I hope mods are voicing disagreement if they have it. If a mod disagrees with a decision, what is really the big danger? Knowing that a mod disagrees with a decision won't really cause any kind of negative change. Clearly, there already are private disagreements. Yet, the mod team hasn't devolved into rabid bar fights, as far as anybody can tell.

P.S. Totally bumping this since it's like a little more than tangentially related!

*Totally dropping in while working, and Mura, I now have STOP! In the Name of Love! stuck in my head! *
Generally what we're concerned about is Mod shopping. If it ends up with players assuming Mod A is much, hmm, nicer than Mod B it becomes an issue when we see posts with "I refuse to accept Mod B's judgement, I want Mod A to rule".

*Goes back to work*

1. That should be the anthem of Nationstates.

2. I think that impression of mod-dom would be pretty easy to shoot down.

[Barringtonia]

...because they're explaining their reason for the ruling as opposed to whether they're innocent or not. For the poster it's a case of proving themselves innocent of the moderated charge, for the moderator it's a case of explaining their ruling on that charge.

As LG said, "if it has reached the review stage, the accused and accusers have already made their cases publicly."

If not to explain their reasoning, then what "case" has the moderator made?

I assume the 'accused and accusers' relates to the posters vying in moderation as opposed to the distinction of the moderator determining the ruling.

(Note: unlike TCT and Neo Art, I am not a lawyer or an attorney. I have however, been playing Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney as recently as yesterday, however.)

I have the cheats for level 12: Supreme Court if you need.

[Muravyets]

I see, you apply a double standard, and then you only seek guidance as to one way of thinking. You allow a type of discourse with moderators that you do not allow with players, even though you earlier argued that we should all remember that you're also players just like us and that you think of us as equals. And you only seek to get out of your perspective and into the other mod's but not into that of the offended/ing player.

I don't think you do see. I don't apply a double standard to players and moderators. I apply two legitimate standards to the makers of a case and the tools to help me decide it.

Two standards. One applied to one side of the matter, and the other applied to the other side of the same matter.

But not double.

Right.

[The Norwegian Blue]

2) It breaks down the wall of silence that leads to many of the suspicions already aired. Wanna make us (or at least me) happier with appeals? "We looked it over and 3 mods felt like this, 1 mod felt like that, and 2 recused themselves for various reasons." looks a lot more like a functioning appeals process than "The Borg Mod Collective has Rendered Judgement. Resistance is futile.".

Y'know...I actually kinda love this idea. One of my big frustrations during some of the Big Ol' NSG Controversies has been watching the mods simultaneously give totally different reasons why something was okay/not okay and claim to be a perfectly unanimous collective. It's bizarre, it's confusing, and it's kind of dishonest. I agree that "mod shopping" would be a problem, but if what we heard was, "Six mods were present to discuss this appeal. Mod 1 was recused, Mods 2-4 felt that the ruling made sense as given, for the reasons originally stated. Mod 5 agreed but thought that, in addition, blah de blah. Mod 6 dissented because blurgle blurgle blurp. Based on this, the original ruling stands," what we get is a coherent (if necessarily limited) view of the appeals process in which individual mods' positions are acknowledged but you still rule as a unified whole, all without having any way of knowing which mod did what.

I've only been thinking about this for the past two minutes, so there may be some big flaw in this concept I haven't thought of yet, in which case please do chime in and point it out.

[Muravyets]

2) It breaks down the wall of silence that leads to many of the suspicions already aired. Wanna make us (or at least me) happier with appeals? "We looked it over and 3 mods felt like this, 1 mod felt like that, and 2 recused themselves for various reasons." looks a lot more like a functioning appeals process than "The Borg Mod Collective has Rendered Judgement. Resistance is futile.".

Y'know...I actually kinda love this idea. One of my big frustrations during some of the Big Ol' NSG Controversies has been watching the mods simultaneously give totally different reasons why something was okay/not okay and claim to be a perfectly unanimous collective. It's bizarre, it's confusing, and it's kind of dishonest. I agree that "mod shopping" would be a problem, but if what we heard was, "Six mods were present to discuss this appeal. Mod 1 was recused, Mods 2-4 felt that the ruling made sense as given, for the reasons originally stated. Mod 5 agreed but thought that, in addition, blah de blah. Mod 6 dissented because blurgle blurgle blurp. Based on this, the original ruling stands," what we get is a coherent (if necessarily limited) view of the appeals process in which individual mods' positions are acknowledged but you still rule as a unified whole, all without having any way of knowing which mod did what.

I've only been thinking about this for the past two minutes, so there may be some big flaw in this concept I haven't thought of yet, in which case please do chime in and point it out.

I've been thinking about it longer than that, I love it!! Of course, it's almost 1am here so...

[Lunatic Goofballs]

I am also vaguely bothered by the fact that the most common and pressing concern from.moderators, when faced with possible policy changes, is "what is good for the moderators?" And not "what's best for the forum?"

Seriously. If the primary objection is "But it makes my job harder...." again, grow a skin. You volunteered to help better the community, not the other way around

If that our most common and pressing concern, this thread would have been locked a long time ago. There are already grumbles that this thread is turning from a forward moving conversation of improvements to be made to the rules moderators must follow to a circular kvetching at the mods for doing what's expected of them by the OWNER. I support some of these changes, but don't think for one second that I'm not going to discuss BOTH the potential risks AND rewards of doing so and don't think that the decision to make those changes is mine. Or yours.

When I came onto this thread, some of you(mods included) were dug in and hunkered down and not to blow my own horn, but I think I did a good job of getting this conversation moving forward again. But now you and Murayvets are hunkering down again and I won't do the same. You've explained your perspective, I've explained mine. I've done my best to give you a glimpse behind the curtain to help figure out what can and should change and what will be resisted because many of us believe very strongly that some of what we do is for a very good reason. This might come as a shock to you after all the discussions and debates on NSG, but I don't feel the need to agree with you or convince you not do I feel the need to be convinced.

Surely you must remember even back when I wasn't a mod that I didn't work that way. It's enough for me to give and then thoroughly explain my position. I have nothing to win by being right and nothing to lose by being wrong. I'm okay with discord. Hell, I prefer it. More than once I've defended threads like this because it gives players a chance to offer perspective, solution or at least a chance to vent. As long as this thread moves forward, I'll continue to defend it. But if it turns into a round and round circle of kvetching and accusations, I'll lock it myself.

[Geniasis]

I have the cheats for level 12: Supreme Court if you need.

Is it a murder case? Please tell me it's not a murder case. For once I'd like to defend a client against accusations of like, I dunno, tax evasion or something.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

I don't think you do see. I don't apply a double standard to players and moderators. I apply two legitimate standards to the makers of a case and the tools to help me decide it.

Two standards. One applied to one side of the matter, and the other applied to the other side of the same matter.

But not double.

Right.

You're assuming that players and moderators are on different sides. I don't see it that way. I see it as player vs player and mods are referees(cops would be a better metaphor).

[Czardas]

2) It breaks down the wall of silence that leads to many of the suspicions already aired. Wanna make us (or at least me) happier with appeals? "We looked it over and 3 mods felt like this, 1 mod felt like that, and 2 recused themselves for various reasons." looks a lot more like a functioning appeals process than "The Borg Mod Collective has Rendered Judgement. Resistance is futile.". ;)

Y'know...I actually kinda love this idea. One of my big frustrations during some of the Big Ol' NSG Controversies has been watching the mods simultaneously give totally different reasons why something was okay/not okay and claim to be a perfectly unanimous collective. It's bizarre, it's confusing, and it's kind of dishonest. I agree that "mod shopping" would be a problem, but if what we heard was, "Six mods were present to discuss this appeal. Mod 1 was recused, Mods 2-4 felt that the ruling made sense as given, for the reasons originally stated. Mod 5 agreed but thought that, in addition, blah de blah. Mod 6 dissented because blurgle blurgle blurp. Based on this, the original ruling stands," what we get is a coherent (if necessarily limited) view of the appeals process in which individual mods' positions are acknowledged but you still rule as a unified whole, all without having any way of knowing which mod did what.

I've only been thinking about this for the past two minutes, so there may be some big flaw in this concept I haven't thought of yet, in which case please do chime in and point it out.

I actually like this idea as well -- while there remain plenty of issues it doesn't address, I think it's kinda neat. More transparent than the current system, and it seems harmless (I can't imagine this being a severe detriment to anyone).

[Muravyets]

I'm not hunkering down. I'm disappointed. Before you decided to join us, LG, the conversation was very forward-moving, and I do have to say that much of that positive energy was initiated by us players -- you know, me, Neo Art, TCT, among others, the ones who are often tagged as the biggest pains in the ass, the most negative and harsh, etc, etc. The defensiveness towards things that are not in the least bit personal, and hardly critical at all came from two moderators, and it was quite negative. So I'm sorry if, by the time you joined us, I was in less of a mood to be sympathetic towards what I frankly see as excuses more than legitimate problems. I know perfectly well what the burdens of a job like moderator are -- that's why I've never wanted to do it -- but I'm sorry, I just don't buy that "telling when someone is trolling" is one of them, just as I don't buy that invoking two different standards for each side of an issue is not applying a double standard.

I was sincere in what I said about my opinion of you earlier. I really do think of you that way. But you have disappointed me tonight. But you go right ahead and lock it because you think us players are being a problem.



Well, everyone, this has been, y'know, real. But I have to go to bed. Later.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

He's not making his or her case. He's explaining his decision. If I'm having trouble understanding it, talking to the original moderator can help. Once I understand the case, I can better rule on it.

I will ask again. What could possibly be said that couldn't have been said the first time?

One thing that wasn't said the first time is whether my ability to understand a case is based on my own biases or not. Let me give a hypothetical; Let's suppose that moderator A accused you of trolling and I don't think it is. Well, there are three possibilities; either he was biased, I am biased or I'm not understanding the case. The first person I turn to is the original moderator because if I can understand his thinking, I can rule out his and/or my bias or decide to pull in more moderators to help me understand the case. I can't just automatically assume that if I disagree with the moderator that HE'S the biased one or I'd be just as wrong as if he WAS.

[Neo Art]

Frankly speaking, the more I see behind the curtain the more I am convinced of the need to change. First and foremost is the apparently great confusion as to what the policies actually are. Let alone where they need fixing.

How are we expected to.have a productive discussion when counter arguments reference things that are actively discouraged by rules? How can we discuss the improvements to the appeal process when it is pretty clear y'all cant even reach consensus on what the process currently IS?

A question has been asked by numerous players to numerous mods. What can a deciding mod add to an appeals process that he couldn't have added in the first place?

You still actually haven't answered that question, but I am the one digging on heels?

[Geniasis]

The closest I've seen to an answer is: "his thought processes and rationale for his ruling."

Which is frankly disturbing if it only enters the conversation at once at the review process.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

Frankly speaking, the more I see behind the curtain the more I am convinced of the need to change. First and foremost is the apparently great confusion as to what the policies actually are. Let alone where they need fixing.

How are we expected to.have a productive discussion when counter arguments reference things that are actively discouraged by rules? How can we discuss the improvements to the appeal process when it is pretty clear y'all cant even reach consensus on what the process currently IS?

A question has been asked by numerous players to numerous mods. What can a deciding mod add to an appeals process that he couldn't have added in the first place?

You still actually haven't answered that question, but I am the one digging on heels?

I've answered the question at least five times in five different ways. Just because you don't like the answer doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I need a break.

[Neo Art]

I will ask again. What could possibly be said that couldn't have been said the first time?

One thing that wasn't said the first time is whether my ability to understand a case is based on my own biases or not. Let me give a hypothetical; Let's suppose that moderator A accused you of trolling and I don't think it is. Well, there are three possibilities; either he was biased, I am biased or I'm not understanding the case.

If you think the only POSSIBLE reasons two people can disagree is one of them is biased, or one of them just doesn't understand it well enough, then my efforts have been wasted.

Though honestly, it goes a long way in explaining this resistance. If I believed that someone wishing for an appeal could only be because they believed I either:

1) was biased
2) didn't get it

I'd be pretty resistant to the idea myself. But the idea that the only possible options why two people might disagree is somebody's biased, or somebody just doesn't get it, is...I don't even know what it is.

It's not the logic that is the foundation of any legal process I know of though.

[Neo Art]

s to the appeal process when it is pretty clear y'all cant even reach consensus on what the process currently IS?

A question has been asked by numerous players to numerous mods. What can a deciding mod add to an appeals process that he couldn't have added in the first place?

You still actually haven't answered that question, but I am the one digging on heels?

I've answered the question at least five times in five different ways. Just because you don't like the answer doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Just because you thought you answered it, doesn't mean you actually did.

I need a break.

*shrug* not my call. Again though, if moderators are getting this heated over the mere implication that something MIGHT be wrong with their process, how are any of us supposed to be even the slightest bit optimistic that this time things will be taken seriously.

Not like all the other times this topic has come up.

Yes, I'm sure many of you do what you do because you think it's best. Have you considered you might be wrong?

[Neo Art]

The closest I've seen to an answer is: "his thought processes and rationale for his ruling."

Which is frankly disturbing if it only enters the conversation at once at the review process.

Indeed, one would think "thought process and rationale" would be explainable when the decision was made.

Those are not anything that couldn't have been said at the time of original decision.

[Czardas]

Again though, if moderators are getting this heated over the mere implication that something MIGHT be wrong with their process

That's not why anyone is becoming heated. Note that both this thread and previous examples similar to it started off with mods and players amicably discussing (for a little over two pages) suggestions for improving the process: suggesting acceptance of flaws therein.

Why do the threads wind up like this, then?

I'd say it's a riddle for the ages, but really, more or less the same things happen every time.

Yes, I'm sure many of you do what you do because you think it's best. Have you considered you might be wrong?

Frequently. I tend to see the process as less important than the results, though.