Moderation

[ginosaji]

This thread exists for people to air their concerns and questions about moderation. You can bring up specific actions or just general trends. The default before this has always been a tendency towards shutting down conversation about moderation. I want to stress the idea that we all keep this civil. We're discussing a sensitive issue since it has to do with punishment and the right to free speech.

 

Also keep in mind that this isn't a democracy. All the mods tend towards democratic ideals, but the devs are the oligarchs of this game and it's sphere. Obviously they will need to respond to popular demand, lest their game fail. Effectively this is a democracy, but functionally it's an oligarchy. I only state this to remind you that our goals and policies need also to coincide with the desires of the devs.

 

I wanted to start this because in the past I have been asking that people address moderation concerns via PM. The issue with that is that it's time consuming... I have to describe my moderation philosophy to everyone I take action against. Since I can't, in good faith, punish someone without describing the reasons why they are being punished, I was having to do a lot more PMing than I'd prefer to. I also want my opinions and actions to be as objective and translucent as possible, so that the people I'm moderating don't feel subjegated.

 

I invite other mods to participate in this discussion with you, the forum at large, but there is no obligation or expectation. I understand not everyone has the time or patience. The views that I portray in this thread represent my ideas and mine alone. I do not claim to speak for any of the other Mods aside from personal annecdotes of experiences I've had with them so far.

 

This isn't the place to call people out, pressure a mod into relenting a judgement, troll, BM, or generally. Remember, we're all a part of the same community. There have been misteps in both moderation and on the part of the community over the past months. Some mods are new, give them a break. They want what's best for the community and the game as much as any of you. I urge you all to give each other and the moderation the benefit of the doubt rather than jumping to extremes like we have been doing. I want this to be a reference point for nuance in moderation, not a thread for BM, trolling, and whining. If it goes in that direction I will not hesitate to shut it down.

Edited January 22, 2014 by ginosaji

[Hogwarts]

Great Job, Gino I have been asking for something like this for a while. All this "behind closed doors" nonsense only hurts the community in my opinion.

 

I hope the community takes this chance to actively pursue a more united community. Then squander this with direct bm and trolling.

 

Here's to a more united community. !!!

[ginosaji]

I'd also like to say something quick about the issue surrounding bank files and Guz. I know it's awkward for him and I want to set the tone rather than to react to an off hand BM comment like we usually do.

 

Red and the rest of the Mod team knew about the bank file incident and decided to take on Guz as a moderator anyway. I can't speak for the rest of the mod team, but I have faith that he will be a good mod. Guz and I have had disagreements (over bans, what server to play on, etc.) in the past as well as anyone else, but we've worked through them. For example, in the tourny this last fall, he wanted to play on EU an equal amount as NA. I refused for various reasons as the the rules of the tourny dictated the games would take place on NA unless agreed by captains. Looking back, I think it was pretty un-gracious and dishonorable to take that action and I regret it. He was pretty pissed with me at the time, as was his team, yet they were still manner. We still maintain a friendly relationship even when we have disagreements at times.

 

The decision has been made and you all need to deal with it. He is a mod of this forum and will be for the forseeable future. We won't be able to tell whether it was the right descision until we allow him to do his job. Questioning the rational behind his or any of the other new mods (or old for that matter) is perfectly acceptable. What isn't acceptable is the flagrant BM that a hand full of you have been directing towards him. Continue with the BM vendetta and you will feel the full force of the ban-hammer.

 

Whether he should or shouldn't be a Mod is mute at this point. He already is one. If you'd like to continue this discussion in meta-ethics, please form another thread. I bid you good luck, as 2700 years of recorded western thought in the area have been entirely devoid of any Truth thus far.

 

Edit: Words.

Edited January 22, 2014 by ginosaji

[Moo]

My main concern with this is explaining why a mod does something. When I received a warning point for backseat modding, the reason that was shown when I viewed the warning point was abusive behavior, which can mean so many different things it isn't even funny. I had to PM the mod to ask the specifics of why I was warned. If you aren't told up front what you are warned for, what is the point of the warning point? Is it not to warn people not to do something? If you don't know why you were warned, you can't correct yourself in the future, thus defeating the purpose of the warning point. I think that the specific reason you are warned/banned should be stated when viewing the warn/ban. I was also banned for spamming, and when I asked the mod why my post was considered spamming, he said that the post I quoted wasn't on the topic. After I explained it was on the topic previously, he said that I was backseat modding, and that this was why I was banned. This may have been just a one-time thing, but it still shows that the reason you are banned is not always apparent, and I think that it needs to be clarified for the person being banned/warned.

Edited January 23, 2014 by Moo

[EterNity]

I don't mind the Nazi as long as I don't get banned. Close door or not. Muhaha!

[Midknight]

I don't mind the Nazi as long as I don't get banned. Close door or not. Muhaha!

 

 

 

[Hogwarts]

 

 

 

How is this in any way appropriate? Not only are you a moderator. Your a senior moderator. Why would you spam this thread and post something off topic?

 

Its completely disrespectful to gino and what he is trying to accomplish.

[Yaldi]

@Gino Hardly anyone dislikes GuZ we all bm him because we love his big fat putita face :p

 

A great part of EU is the communal bming of each other. Now we have an EU moderator so that is just amplified as it combines 2 types of people we love to bm :)

[Midknight]

How is this in any way appropriate? Not only are you a moderator. Your a senior moderator. Why would you spam this thread and post something off topic?

 

Its completely disrespectful to gino and what he is trying to accomplish.

 

Given the spirit of the thread, I'll address this right here in the interest of transparency. It seems that when we take action to bring threads in line, people complain that we're overly strict. But when we show some levity, we're called out as being too lax. It seems that some people simply can't be happy. We moderate what needs to be moderated and we show levity where it needs to be shown. Extended thread derailment is guided back to topics and, when those guiding words are ignored, we take action. But I find it incredibly hard to believe that any member of this forum has such an atrophied sense of humor that they can't handle the well-timed and opportune joke. It helps give the human mind context. You tell me if a single post of a funny picture that's actually relevant to the post that it was in response to was so incredibly derailing that the thread just can't get back on topic. Your post would come close to doing that, except that, ironically, the off-topic response to my on-topic humor is, in itself, on-topic in a thread about responding to mods and moderation. And, as long as we're being open and transparent, given your record, I do find it just a little bit ill-conceived for your to complain in earnest about such a thing.

 

So, right here for all to see, I'll outline my general Mod philosophy and guiding principals.

 

1) Every situation is unique: Each report, each offending post, each incident deserves individualized attention and judgement. I don't make sweeping generalizations such as "three off-topic posts = derailed". I also take reported and otherwise notable posts in the context of the thread they are in; I usually try to read the whole thread if manageable, or at least about 2-3 pages prior and a page forward to see why and how a seemingly offensive post came about. I never take it as an island unto itself with no contextual relation.

 

2) Behavior patterns are important tools: While, as stated above, I don't take generalized or automated action, I also don't ignore prior history and knowledge. When a person is brand new to the forum, I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt if they slip up a few times. Every forum is different and everyone deserves a chance to acclimate themselves to the environment. But reputation speaks loudly so if you have a reputation for rule-breaking, I know what to look out for. I'm not going to look at a post made by a habitual rule breaker that seems like it may or may not be rule breaking and give the benefit of the doubt. Likewise, if someone is particularly helpful and good-natured and has a post that seems like it may or may not be rule breaking, I'm far more likely to let it slide since some people's humor just tends to run cross-wise sometimes. Additionally, this also has an effect on the punishments I issue. A person with no significant history of BM who suddenly, out of the blue, comes out with a blatantly offending post that just can't be justified, I'd likely give them a 1 day ban. But someone who said the same exact thing, but with a heavy and recent history of doing so, would get a longer ban. So just because someone said the exact same thing as you (which is rare is there are almost always slight and subtle shades of meaning that can have significant impact on how I treat the post and action against it.

 

3) I don't play favorites. If I happen not to like you, that dislike in and of itself does not affect what moderation actions I take against you. Though, the reason I moderate your post and the reason I dislike you may stem from the same reason, I decide objectively whether the post is in need of action. Likewise, I won't hesitate to moderate the posts of someone I happen to like if I objectively determine it to need as such.

 

4) I have a somewhat eclectic sense of humor and I will levy it as I see fit; to drive home a point, to lighten the mood of a warning, to give general warnings when threads are getting out of hand, etc. I refuse to believe that anyone here is going to take my jokes so seriously as to get as offended as they often claim (especially since the only people to do so are those who get frequent moderation brought against their posts). I've personally determined that such people are just acting butt-hurt, but that's just my opinion and it doesn't, in and of itself, affect how I'd moderate your posts (though it probably stems from the actual reason that makes these people write offending posts in the first place).

 

5) I'm a person and I do have opinions about people. I also understand that other people have their own opinions. That doesn't mean I have to like those opinions. That doesn't mean you have to like mine. But when I act as a moderator, I guide my actions objectively, rationally, and logically to the best of my capacity. If your opinion is dumb, but not against the rules, I'll shut down a report about your post because you're entitled to your dumb opinion. I've done this before and I'll continue to do so. Likewise, even if you have a history of rule breaking, if you make a post that, in my judgement, is clean, I won't take arbitrary action against it no matter how many reports I see about it. And I have seen plenty of frivolous reports that I felt were unwarranted, even against habitual rule-breakers... reports that I closed with no action needed.

 

6) If your post can be simply and unobtrusively adjusted, I'll do so so it doesn't need to be removed outright. I'm sure people have noticed my habit of replacing offensive words with <fluffy bunny>. If you try to do an end-run around the language filter, I'm entirely within my authority to remove your post entirely as being offensive. But I decided early on that I didn't want to do that and a warning and quick censure was more than sufficient for those matters.

 

7) Negative Catalysts towards Enlightenment: Contrast makes things seem more apparent and easier to notice and process. Just as a white square on a black background will look brighter than a white square on a light-gray background, a logical way to do things will look all the more reasonable when juxtaposed with a clearly inane method. Sometimes, you need a bad experience to better value the good experiences. Sometimes, you don't know whether something that seems undesirable is actually, objectively desirable or not. And sometimes, a little irreverent humor, as a mental feint, can get a person to drop their guard and catch a point that they otherwise would have missed entirely. I use this method extensively; It's sometimes referred to as the Socratic Method, after Socrates who also used it extensively, or Reductio ad Absurdum in more formal terms. Sometimes, what seems like BM on the surface isn't meant to be offensive but enlightening. Other times, it's BM no matter how far you dig. I'm always double-checking reported posts to see if it's actual and intended rule-breaking, or just what may be mistaken as such on casual inspection (especially emotionally and subjectively driven casual inspection). I consider this a very important distinction to parse.

 

8) Lastly, all action I take is against posts or threads; never against a person. If I warn you, it's because of your actions, not you personally. If I ban you, same applies. Even if you're a complete jerkwad, it's the behavior that I object to, not the person. So if I issue you a warning or a ban or even neither and just drop you a PM suggesting that your behavior is somewhat arbitrary and it might be a good idea to tone it down (which people have even complained about), and you feel I'm singling you out because I don't like you; discard that idea, wholesale. It's your actions that I moderate, not you personally (and yes, these are two separate things). That's not to say I don't dislike you as a person, but that's a personal matter and has no significant role to play for me, as a moderator.

 

[Moo]

 

 

Given the spirit of the thread, I'll address this right here in the interest of transparency. It seems that when we take action to bring threads in line, people complain that we're overly strict. But when we show some levity, we're called out as being too lax. It seems that some people simply can't be happy. We moderate what needs to be moderated and we show levity where it needs to be shown. Extended thread derailment is guided back to topics and, when those guiding words are ignored, we take action. But I find it incredibly hard to believe that any member of this forum has such an atrophied sense of humor that they can't handle the well-timed and opportune joke. It helps give the human mind context. You tell me if a single post of a funny picture that's actually relevant to the post that it was in response to was so incredibly derailing that the thread just can't get back on topic. Your post would come close to doing that, except that, ironically, the off-topic response to my on-topic humor is, in itself, on-topic in a thread about responding to mods and moderation. And, as long as we're being open and transparent, given your record, I do find it just a little bit ill-conceived for your to complain in earnest about such a thing.

 

So, right here for all to see, I'll outline my general Mod philosophy and guiding principals.

 

1) Every situation is unique: Each report, each offending post, each incident deserves individualized attention and judgement. I don't make sweeping generalizations such as "three off-topic posts = derailed". I also take reported and otherwise notable posts in the context of the thread they are in; I usually try to read the whole thread if manageable, or at least about 2-3 pages prior and a page forward to see why and how a seemingly offensive post came about. I never take it as an island unto itself with no contextual relation.

 

2) Behavior patterns are important tools: While, as stated above, I don't take generalized or automated action, I also don't ignore prior history and knowledge. When a person is brand new to the forum, I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt if they slip up a few times. Every forum is different and everyone deserves a chance to acclimate themselves to the environment. But reputation speaks loudly so if you have a reputation for rule-breaking, I know what to look out for. I'm not going to look at a post made by a habitual rule breaker that seems like it may or may not be rule breaking and give the benefit of the doubt. Likewise, if someone is particularly helpful and good-natured and has a post that seems like it may or may not be rule breaking, I'm far more likely to let it slide since some people's humor just tends to run cross-wise sometimes. Additionally, this also has an effect on the punishments I issue. A person with no significant history of BM who suddenly, out of the blue, comes out with a blatantly offending post that just can't be justified, I'd likely give them a 1 day ban. But someone who said the same exact thing, but with a heavy and recent history of doing so, would get a longer ban. So just because someone said the exact same thing as you (which is rare is there are almost always slight and subtle shades of meaning that can have significant impact on how I treat the post and action against it.

 

3) I don't play favorites. If I happen not to like you, that dislike in and of itself does not affect what moderation actions I take against you. Though, the reason I moderate your post and the reason I dislike you may stem from the same reason, I decide objectively whether the post is in need of action. Likewise, I won't hesitate to moderate the posts of someone I happen to like if I objectively determine it to need as such.

 

4) I have a somewhat eclectic sense of humor and I will levy it as I see fit; to drive home a point, to lighten the mood of a warning, to give general warnings when threads are getting out of hand, etc. I refuse to believe that anyone here is going to take my jokes so seriously as to get as offended as they often claim (especially since the only people to do so are those who get frequent moderation brought against their posts). I've personally determined that such people are just acting butt-hurt, but that's just my opinion and it doesn't, in and of itself, affect how I'd moderate your posts (though it probably stems from the actual reason that makes these people write offending posts in the first place).

 

5) I'm a person and I do have opinions about people. I also understand that other people have their own opinions. That doesn't mean I have to like those opinions. That doesn't mean you have to like mine. But when I act as a moderator, I guide my actions objectively, rationally, and logically to the best of my capacity. If your opinion is dumb, but not against the rules, I'll shut down a report about your post because you're entitled to your dumb opinion. I've done this before and I'll continue to do so. Likewise, even if you have a history of rule breaking, if you make a post that, in my judgement, is clean, I won't take arbitrary action against it no matter how many reports I see about it. And I have seen plenty of frivolous reports that I felt were unwarranted, even against habitual rule-breakers... reports that I closed with no action needed.

 

6) If your post can be simply and unobtrusively adjusted, I'll do so so it doesn't need to be removed outright. I'm sure people have noticed my habit of replacing offensive words with <fluffy bunny>. If you try to do an end-run around the language filter, I'm entirely within my authority to remove your post entirely as being offensive. But I decided early on that I didn't want to do that and a warning and quick censure was more than sufficient for those matters.

 

7) Negative Catalysts towards Enlightenment: Contrast makes things seem more apparent and easier to notice and process. Just as a white square on a black background will look brighter than a white square on a light-gray background, a logical way to do things will look all the more reasonable when juxtaposed with a clearly inane method. Sometimes, you need a bad experience to better value the good experiences. Sometimes, you don't know whether something that seems undesirable is actually, objectively desirable or not. And sometimes, a little irreverent humor, as a mental feint, can get a person to drop their guard and catch a point that they otherwise would have missed entirely. I use this method extensively; It's sometimes referred to as the Socratic Method, after Socrates who also used it extensively, or Reductio ad Absurdum in more formal terms. Sometimes, what seems like BM on the surface isn't meant to be offensive but enlightening. Other times, it's BM no matter how far you dig. I'm always double-checking reported posts to see if it's actual and intended rule-breaking, or just what may be mistaken as such on casual inspection (especially emotionally and subjectively driven casual inspection). I consider this a very important distinction to parse.

 

8) Lastly, all action I take is against posts or threads; never against a person. If I warn you, it's because of your actions, not you personally. If I ban you, same applies. Even if you're a complete jerkwad, it's the behavior that I object to, not the person. So if I issue you a warning or a ban or even neither and just drop you a PM suggesting that your behavior is somewhat arbitrary and it might be a good idea to tone it down (which people have even complained about), and you feel I'm singling you out because I don't like you; discard that idea, wholesale. It's your actions that I moderate, not you personally (and yes, these are two separate things). That's not to say I don't dislike you as a person, but that's a personal matter and has no significant role to play for me, as a moderator.

 

I see your point, but I agree with Quidditch. I think he is not so much thinking that you have been too strict and shouldn't be lax at all, I think it has more to do with how sensitive, serious, and highly-debated this topic is.

[pchacker]

I see your point, but I agree with Quidditch. I think he is not so much thinking that you have been too strict and shouldn't be lax at all, I think it has more to do with how sensitive, serious, and highly-debated this topic is.

 

At least he put it in spoilers :-)

 

Anyway I'm surprised more people haven't posted in this thread.

Edited January 23, 2014 by Dylan

[TungVu]

Probably because its in Announcement. I mean why is it in Announcement?

[pchacker]

Probably because its in Announcement. I mean why is it in Announcement?

 

Not sure, maybe because gino got permission to put it in annoucements?

[Moo]

 

 

At least he put it in spoilers :-)

 

Anyway I'm surprised more people haven't posted in this thread.

Oh, sorry if it wasn't in my quote, I just used the quote button, typed my part, then posted, so I dunno why it wouldn't have been in a spoiler.

 

I am also surprised. Do people just ignore the announcement section? I thought it was supposed to be more important, and therefore more people would notice topics in it.

[pchacker]

Oh, sorry if it wasn't in my quote, I just used the quote button, typed my part, then posted, so I dunno why it wouldn't have been in a spoiler.

 

I am also surprised. Do people just ignore the announcement section? I thought it was supposed to be more important, and therefore more people would notice topics in it.

 

I think people just ignore it because so few topics get posted here, for example in the last year only about 5 or 6 threads have been made.

 

Anyway I'm getting off topic, do you have any thoughts about moderation you feel the need to "air".

[RedHydra]

Moderation != Aeon of Storms

 

There's already 150 views on this thread for one day. Plus, you can easily find it in Recent Topics. That's pretty noticeable. So as Gino said, this place exists for people to air their concerns and questions about moderation. If there is nothing to show, this act of service may as well be terminated.

 

Once again, if you have legitimate issues/questions to point out, let us hear your case.

[Hogwarts]

Given the spirit of the thread, I'll address this right here in the interest of transparency. It seems that when we take action to bring threads in line, people complain that we're overly strict. But when we show some levity, we're called out as being too lax. It seems that some people simply can't be happy. We moderate what needs to be moderated and we show levity where it needs to be shown. Extended thread derailment is guided back to topics and, when those guiding words are ignored, we take action. But I find it incredibly hard to believe that any member of this forum has such an atrophied sense of humor that they can't handle the well-timed and opportune joke. It helps give the human mind context. You tell me if a single post of a funny picture that's actually relevant to the post that it was in response to was so incredibly derailing that the thread just can't get back on topic. Your post would come close to doing that, except that, ironically, the off-topic response to my on-topic humor is, in itself, on-topic in a thread about responding to mods and moderation. And, as long as we're being open and transparent, given your record, I do find it just a little bit ill-conceived for your to complain in earnest about such a thing.

 

So, right here for all to see, I'll outline my general Mod philosophy and guiding principals.

 

1) Every situation is unique: Each report, each offending post, each incident deserves individualized attention and judgement. I don't make sweeping generalizations such as "three off-topic posts = derailed". I also take reported and otherwise notable posts in the context of the thread they are in; I usually try to read the whole thread if manageable, or at least about 2-3 pages prior and a page forward to see why and how a seemingly offensive post came about. I never take it as an island unto itself with no contextual relation.

 

2) Behavior patterns are important tools: While, as stated above, I don't take generalized or automated action, I also don't ignore prior history and knowledge. When a person is brand new to the forum, I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt if they slip up a few times. Every forum is different and everyone deserves a chance to acclimate themselves to the environment. But reputation speaks loudly so if you have a reputation for rule-breaking, I know what to look out for. I'm not going to look at a post made by a habitual rule breaker that seems like it may or may not be rule breaking and give the benefit of the doubt. Likewise, if someone is particularly helpful and good-natured and has a post that seems like it may or may not be rule breaking, I'm far more likely to let it slide since some people's humor just tends to run cross-wise sometimes. Additionally, this also has an effect on the punishments I issue. A person with no significant history of BM who suddenly, out of the blue, comes out with a blatantly offending post that just can't be justified, I'd likely give them a 1 day ban. But someone who said the same exact thing, but with a heavy and recent history of doing so, would get a longer ban. So just because someone said the exact same thing as you (which is rare is there are almost always slight and subtle shades of meaning that can have significant impact on how I treat the post and action against it.

 

3) I don't play favorites. If I happen not to like you, that dislike in and of itself does not affect what moderation actions I take against you. Though, the reason I moderate your post and the reason I dislike you may stem from the same reason, I decide objectively whether the post is in need of action. Likewise, I won't hesitate to moderate the posts of someone I happen to like if I objectively determine it to need as such.

 

4) I have a somewhat eclectic sense of humor and I will levy it as I see fit; to drive home a point, to lighten the mood of a warning, to give general warnings when threads are getting out of hand, etc. I refuse to believe that anyone here is going to take my jokes so seriously as to get as offended as they often claim (especially since the only people to do so are those who get frequent moderation brought against their posts). I've personally determined that such people are just acting butt-hurt, but that's just my opinion and it doesn't, in and of itself, affect how I'd moderate your posts (though it probably stems from the actual reason that makes these people write offending posts in the first place).

 

5) I'm a person and I do have opinions about people. I also understand that other people have their own opinions. That doesn't mean I have to like those opinions. That doesn't mean you have to like mine. But when I act as a moderator, I guide my actions objectively, rationally, and logically to the best of my capacity. If your opinion is dumb, but not against the rules, I'll shut down a report about your post because you're entitled to your dumb opinion. I've done this before and I'll continue to do so. Likewise, even if you have a history of rule breaking, if you make a post that, in my judgement, is clean, I won't take arbitrary action against it no matter how many reports I see about it. And I have seen plenty of frivolous reports that I felt were unwarranted, even against habitual rule-breakers... reports that I closed with no action needed.

 

6) If your post can be simply and unobtrusively adjusted, I'll do so so it doesn't need to be removed outright. I'm sure people have noticed my habit of replacing offensive words with <fluffy bunny>. If you try to do an end-run around the language filter, I'm entirely within my authority to remove your post entirely as being offensive. But I decided early on that I didn't want to do that and a warning and quick censure was more than sufficient for those matters.

 

7) Negative Catalysts towards Enlightenment: Contrast makes things seem more apparent and easier to notice and process. Just as a white square on a black background will look brighter than a white square on a light-gray background, a logical way to do things will look all the more reasonable when juxtaposed with a clearly inane method. Sometimes, you need a bad experience to better value the good experiences. Sometimes, you don't know whether something that seems undesirable is actually, objectively desirable or not. And sometimes, a little irreverent humor, as a mental feint, can get a person to drop their guard and catch a point that they otherwise would have missed entirely. I use this method extensively; It's sometimes referred to as the Socratic Method, after Socrates who also used it extensively, or Reductio ad Absurdum in more formal terms. Sometimes, what seems like BM on the surface isn't meant to be offensive but enlightening. Other times, it's BM no matter how far you dig. I'm always double-checking reported posts to see if it's actual and intended rule-breaking, or just what may be mistaken as such on casual inspection (especially emotionally and subjectively driven casual inspection). I consider this a very important distinction to parse.

 

8) Lastly, all action I take is against posts or threads; never against a person. If I warn you, it's because of your actions, not you personally. If I ban you, same applies. Even if you're a complete jerkwad, it's the behavior that I object to, not the person. So if I issue you a warning or a ban or even neither and just drop you a PM suggesting that your behavior is somewhat arbitrary and it might be a good idea to tone it down (which people have even complained about), and you feel I'm singling you out because I don't like you; discard that idea, wholesale. It's your actions that I moderate, not you personally (and yes, these are two separate things). That's not to say I don't dislike you as a person, but that's a personal matter and has no significant role to play for me, as a moderator.

 

 

Don't try to paint me as being anti banter and fun. There is a time and a place for such post. But derailing this thread with spam is not the place. Its worse because your a senior mod. This was intended to be a serious topic and you turned it into a joke. Its distasteful and disrespectful towards Gino. You set the tone that its ok to spam this thread "because its funny" So now is it ok for skydie to come in and post all of his meme images? And derail it further?

[RedHydra]

This is not the place to call people out, or pressure a moderator on how he posts. One image isn't going to kill a thread unless it is being done consistently. (And yes, that picture is offensive, but not to the extreme).

 

@Moo - Warning Points are there to warn you. We do not follow the 3-warning system as it has been proven too exploitative. You should be able to see what you got warned for in your own warning history. What's the point of the warning system? It's simple: We get you know you better! o_O

 

The forum rule thread basically tells you how we run things here.

 

Again, this thread was made to talk about moderation management, not midknight's way of life. Any other concerns?

[Allstar]

The main story about moderation is about being "undeservedly" warned or banned.

 

"This is a forum dedicated to the continued development of a Starcraft II Mod, and is not a general gaming community. If your post is unpleasant to the eye, you will be banned for it.

- Do not talk about moderators, or moderation.

- Do NOT talk about moderators, or moderation."

 

This is the problem. There isn't an actual set of rules here because this isn't an actual gaming community, so the moderators get to create their own philosophies and depending on which mod you get nets different results. There is nobody to hold the moderators accountable and ensure continuity. The mods need to create a common philosphy that they can follow and that philosophy should be provided in the Rules section. If the general rule is "If your post is unpleasant to the eye, you will be banned for it" then apply that philosophy, but if you have Midnight putting up huge ass posts of philosophy to impliment a single line philosophy, I think we've just identified a good place to start. The moderators have no authoritative identity because the regular members of the forum don't know what rules they have to follow per each moderator they have to deal with. I don't think many people are going to reference Midnight's 8-part novella every time he moderates.

 

Get rid of this: "If your post is unpleasant to the eye, you will be banned for it" and make a real Rules page. If anyone has problems direct them to the rules page and the section they violated with a brief description of how they violated it. If they feel they didn't violate it then there should be a short and effective rebuttal process in place to be handled by an uninvolved moderator.

 

Not sure, maybe because gino got permission to put it in annoucements?

 

Also, a cut back on patronizing superiority complex in serious threads might help.

[ginosaji]

Don't try to paint me as being anti banter and fun. There is a time and a place for such post. But derailing this thread with spam is not the place. Its worse because your a senior mod. This was intended to be a serious topic and you turned it into a joke. Its distasteful and disrespectful towards Gino. You set the tone that its ok to spam this thread "because its funny" So now is it ok for skydie to come in and post all of his meme images? And derail it further?

Given the spirit of the thread, I'll address this right here in the interest of transparency. It seems that when we take action to bring threads in line, people complain that we're overly strict. ButI when we show some levity, we're called out as being too lax. It seems that some people simply can't be happy. We moderate what needs to be moderated and we show levity where it needs to be shown. Extended thread derailment is guided back to topics and, when those guiding words are ignored, we take action. But I find it incredibly hard to believe that any member of this forum has such an atrophied sense of humor that they can't handle the well-timed and opportune joke. It helps give the human mind context. You tell me if a single post of a funny picture that's actually relevant to the post that it was in response to was so incredibly derailing that the thread just can't get back on topic. Your post would come close to doing that, except that, ironically, the off-topic response to my on-topic humor is, in itself, on-topic in a thread about responding to mods and moderation. And, as long as we're being open and transparent, given your record, I do find it just a little bit ill-conceived for your to complain in earnest about such a thing.

 

So, right here for all to see, I'll outline my general Mod philosophy and guiding principals.

 

1) Every situation is unique: Each report, each offending post, each incident deserves individualized attention and judgement. I don't make sweeping generalizations such as "three off-topic posts = derailed". I also take reported and otherwise notable posts in the context of the thread they are in; I usually try to read the whole thread if manageable, or at least about 2-3 pages prior and a page forward to see why and how a seemingly offensive post came about. I never take it as an island unto itself with no contextual relation.

 

2) Behavior patterns are important tools: While, as stated above, I don't take generalized or automated action, I also don't ignore prior history and knowledge. When a person is brand new to the forum, I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt if they slip up a few times. Every forum is different and everyone deserves a chance to acclimate themselves to the environment. But reputation speaks loudly so if you have a reputation for rule-breaking, I know what to look out for. I'm not going to look at a post made by a habitual rule breaker that seems like it may or may not be rule breaking and give the benefit of the doubt. Likewise, if someone is particularly helpful and good-natured and has a post that seems like it may or may not be rule breaking, I'm far more likely to let it slide since some people's humor just tends to run cross-wise sometimes. Additionally, this also has an effect on the punishments I issue. A person with no significant history of BM who suddenly, out of the blue, comes out with a blatantly offending post that just can't be justified, I'd likely give them a 1 day ban. But someone who said the same exact thing, but with a heavy and recent history of doing so, would get a longer ban. So just because someone said the exact same thing as you (which is rare is there are almost always slight and subtle shades of meaning that can have significant impact on how I treat the post and action against it.

 

3) I don't play favorites. If I happen not to like you, that dislike in and of itself does not affect what moderation actions I take against you. Though, the reason I moderate your post and the reason I dislike you may stem from the same reason, I decide objectively whether the post is in need of action. Likewise, I won't hesitate to moderate the posts of someone I happen to like if I objectively determine it to need as such.

 

4) I have a somewhat eclectic sense of humor and I will levy it as I see fit; to drive home a point, to lighten the mood of a warning, to give general warnings when threads are getting out of hand, etc. I refuse to believe that anyone here is going to take my jokes so seriously as to get as offended as they often claim (especially since the only people to do so are those who get frequent moderation brought against their posts). I've personally determined that such people are just acting butt-hurt, but that's just my opinion and it doesn't, in and of itself, affect how I'd moderate your posts (though it probably stems from the actual reason that makes these people write offending posts in the first place).

 

5) I'm a person and I do have opinions about people. I also understand that other people have their own opinions. That doesn't mean I have to like those opinions. That doesn't mean you have to like mine. But when I act as a moderator, I guide my actions objectively, rationally, and logically to the best of my capacity. If your opinion is dumb, but not against the rules, I'll shut down a report about your post because you're entitled to your dumb opinion. I've done this before and I'll continue to do so. Likewise, even if you have a history of rule breaking, if you make a post that, in my judgement, is clean, I won't take arbitrary action against it no matter how many reports I see about it. And I have seen plenty of frivolous reports that I felt were unwarranted, even against habitual rule-breakers... reports that I closed with no action needed.

 

6) If your post can be simply and unobtrusively adjusted, I'll do so so it doesn't need to be removed outright. I'm sure people have noticed my habit of replacing offensive words with <fluffy bunny>. If you try to do an end-run around the language filter, I'm entirely within my authority to remove your post entirely as being offensive. But I decided early on that I didn't want to do that and a warning and quick censure was more than sufficient for those matters.

 

7) Negative Catalysts towards Enlightenment: Contrast makes things seem more apparent and easier to notice and process. Just as a white square on a black background will look brighter than a white square on a light-gray background, a logical way to do things will look all the more reasonable when juxtaposed with a clearly inane method. Sometimes, you need a bad experience to better value the good experiences. Sometimes, you don't know whether something that seems undesirable is actually, objectively desirable or not. And sometimes, a little irreverent humor, as a mental feint, can get a person to drop their guard and catch a point that they otherwise would have missed entirely. I use this method extensively; It's sometimes referred to as the Socratic Method, after Socrates who also used it extensively, or Reductio ad Absurdum in more formal terms. Sometimes, what seems like BM on the surface isn't meant to be offensive but enlightening. Other times, it's BM no matter how far you dig. I'm always double-checking reported posts to see if it's actual and intended rule-breaking, or just what may be mistaken as such on casual inspection (especially emotionally and subjectively driven casual inspection). I consider this a very important distinction to parse.

 

8) Lastly, all action I take is against posts or threads; never against a person. If I warn you, it's because of your actions, not you personally. If I ban you, same applies. Even if you're a complete jerkwad, it's the behavior that I object to, not the person. So if I issue you a warning or a ban or even neither and just drop you a PM suggesting that your behavior is somewhat arbitrary and it might be a good idea to tone it down (which people have even complained about), and you feel I'm singling you out because I don't like you; discard that idea, wholesale. It's your actions that I moderate, not you personally (and yes, these are two separate things). That's not to say I don't dislike you as a person, but that's a personal matter and has no significant role to play for me, as a moderator.

 

 

Can we all just stop fighting ?

Edited January 23, 2014 by ginosaji

[pchacker]

 

Also, a cut back on patronizing superiority complex in serious threads might help.

 

lol really? patronizing superiority complex?

 

I said that because in the past threads have been removed from the announcement section because they were not authorized.

[RedHydra]

The main story about moderation is about being "undeservedly" warned or banned.

 

"This is a forum dedicated to the continued development of a Starcraft II Mod, and is not a general gaming community. If your post is unpleasant to the eye, you will be banned for it.

- Do not talk about moderators, or moderation.

- Do NOT talk about moderators, or moderation."

 

This is the problem. There isn't an actual set of rules here because this isn't an actual gaming community, so the moderators get to create their own philosophies and depending on which mod you get nets different results. There is nobody to hold the moderators accountable and ensure continuity. The mods need to create a common philosophy that they can follow and that philosophy should be provided in the Rules section. If the general rule is "If your post is unpleasant to the eye, you will be banned for it" then apply that philosophy, but if you have Midnight putting up huge ass posts of philosophy to implement a single line philosophy, I think we've just identified a good place to start. The moderators have no authoritative identity because the regular members of the forum don't know what rules they have to follow per each moderator they have to deal with. I don't think many people are going to reference Midnight's 8-part novella every time he moderates.

 

Get rid of this: "If your post is unpleasant to the eye, you will be banned for it" and make a real Rules page. If anyone has problems direct them to the rules page and the section they violated with a brief description of how they violated it. If they feel they didn't violate it then there should be a short and effective rebuttal process in place to be handled by an uninvolved moderator.

 

The warning exists for this purpose: To help members avoid making the same mistakes. I trust people can understand these core rules:

 

- Frequent single-word posts (spam).

- Walls of text or incomprehensible formatting.

- Hard selling other games.

- Derailing or degrading the quality of a thread.

- Personal attacks or hurty feelings.

- Content that would drastically increase Starcraft II's ESRB rating.

- Large images in your signature.

- Do not talk about moderators, or moderation.

- Do NOT talk about moderators, or moderation

 

This is the philosophy that all moderators already have in mind, and what midknight wrote was an elaborate version. All members of this forum must acknowledge these rules to ensure a positive community. Whenever bans or warnings are made, we will provide you one of the reasons listed above, including which post you got banned/warned for.

 

Here's what I will say about making a real Rule page: Other than looking sweet and wordy, it doesn't necessary change for the better. Yes, it will be very elaborate, but how much difference does it make? We had a very wordy version to specify the rules in a past, and it didn't change the fact that people were still complaining about it. Why? Few members have tried their best to dodge the bullet by a) playing semantics and/or b) writing a public post about it. Sometimes mistakes are made by us, and we fix it so long it's legitimate. We don't need to go crazy and start writing a Constitution to establish consistency. Moderators are here not to troll or bully as their primary objective; they're here to make sure no one does anything ridiculous. They have the idea of what's right and what's wrong. I trust the Moderators to have a good sense of it.

[Mus]

- Large images in your signature.

 

Serious question: Is this rule for everyone or just the non-moderators?

 

I've brought this up before but failed to get a response (OP mods turning a blind eye) but in this thread I am certain that somebody will respond.

 

A few weeks ago I saw CoolNoob tell Moo to find a smaller cow image for his signature because it was too big. Moo did as he was told. But, Guz has a much larger image in his signature and nobody has ever told him to make is smaller.

 

Is this because he is a mod so he is allowed to not follow the same rules as everybody else? Or is it because his signature is actually an acceptable size, which means that CoolNoob was wrong to tell Moo to reduce his signature size, and Moo should therefore restore his cow image to the larger size that it used to be?

 

If a mod doesn't respond to this I guess I can always put a large image (but slightly smaller than Guz') in my signature and see how long it takes a mod to ask me to remove it.

[ANARCHY]

i think it would be best just to pick a resolution size that mods deem acceptable and make it a hard rule, everything bigger should be in a spoiler

[residente]

Serious question: Is this rule for everyone or just the non-moderators?

 

But, Guz has a much larger image in his signature and nobody has ever told him to make is smaller.

 

 

I did, a long time ago when he wasn't a Mod, still nothing, not even a spoiler but w/e