Mod Squad Update for the week ending May 12th

-- We realized just how sneaky FanForce can be about announcing things.

What Sebulba-X said.

 

I dont like the good samaritan idea. Granted I wasnt here to see that thread in question, but the "ban if you post but dont PM a mod" doesnt cut it. I am glad it hasnt yet been implemented.

If a person sees a troll open a bad thread, then they might ask if anyone has PMed a mod. They might no do it themselves.
It that banworthy? It seems like in your current post, it is. This would be wrong.

If you decide not to ban these people, then you cant ban a person who just posts 'man, this thread is disgusting' or whatever.

Its then a slippery slope. What is and isnt bannable?

So long as the members that post are trying to condemn the thread or post, so long as they arent encouraging what is going on, then they should not be banned.

Those that encourage, those that condone, perhaps should be banned (I see these people somewhat in the same light as 'baiters' trying to draw people into flaming). But a banning policy such as you suggested would not be the right thing to do.

 

If a person sees a troll open a bad thread, then they might ask if anyone has PMed a mod. They might no do it themselves.

I guess where the main point of contention comes in, is that this thread stayed open for a couple of days, and no one said anything about it.

And I'll also note, that the bannings that were given out because of this thread were not permanent. I don't think they were more then 24 hours.

 

But you cant use this thread in order to define the rules for all threads.

This was a very rare occurrance, and nothing more. You cant set rules to use in 'normal' trolling threads/posts, by using the most extreme thread as an example.

In virtually every case, a troll thread gets locked up quickly. This was a freak occurrance. Nothing more.

 

dags posted what i was about to say

you can't use extreme examples to set rules... extreme examples are the exception, not the rule

 

But this is also a rule that for the most part, only applies to extreme cases. Obviously we're bot going ot be enforcing this on redundant threads, or spam, or anything like that, god, if we did, we'd banning tens of people very day. No, this is a rule that applies to threads like the one that was deleted.

 

but making a rule that you're only going to enforce in extreme cases isn't the best way to make the rule. it'll cause all sorts of freaking out and mondo posts to comm when it actually is enforced.

unless you make it something like "we reserve the right to ban people..." and make it clear that it won't always be enforced, but when the case calls for it, you will.

but even then, if you're making the rule but not planning on enforcing it all the time, it could cause some major problems

 

You want to apply this to troll threads and the like, as opposed to spam and whatnot. However, most troll threads are nothing like this one. Mostly they are shut down early. Mostly someone PMs a mod. These threads are as far away from this one case as spam threads are from troll threads.

But now you are saying that anyone in these shortlived threads can be banned simply because of one extremely rare ocurance?

Nope. Not right. I can understand you guys being pretty POed with the lack of member assistance with that thread. I can understand that you want to avoid that happening again.

But this goes beyond asking for better member input. This seems like a scare tactic at best.

 

I don't know if this thread was anything like the one I saw today in the JCC, but the one today was horrific. General Madine's Hairpiece locked and then deleted it, which I was glad to see. It was sexually explicit (and a rather long post as well) and I was struggling with the system, trying to get it to let me PM Nathan when I noticed it had been deleted.

There seems to be an increase in worse-than-usual spam lately.

 

But, the problem is, like I said, the only time the rule would be relevant, is in extreme cases. It would be unrealistic to enforce it on every thread, we would be digging our own grave (for after all the banned people band together and kill us, ala Jay and Silent Bob).

Its not a matter of us not enforcing it on other threads, as just it not being necessary. For instance, right now, threads, that deal with spoilers outside of PSA are dealt with differently, then say a thread that is just spam, or redundant.

Not many threads like this come up like this one, where we are forced to delete it, and ban at least fifteen different, innappropriate usernames. Those are the only threads that the rule would apply to.


EDIT: GAh Dagsy posted while I was typing.

You want to apply this to troll threads and the like, as opposed to spam and whatnot. However, most troll threads are nothing like this one. Mostly they are shut down early. Mostly someone PMs a mod. These threads are as far away from this one case as spam threads are from troll threads.

But now you are saying that anyone in these shortlived threads can be banned simply because of one extremely rare ocurance?

That type of thread is a different case. One, its shortlived, and not to the scale of the other one, and the other point, I bolded in your post. That's one of those things that may depend on the mod, and I don't want to speak for everybody, but the main point in our discussing this new rule was that, no one PMd a mod. Not a one. They knew what was going on in the thread, and let it go. And it went on, for a couple of days. If something happens, and someone PMs us, and it gets taken care of somewhat quickly, fine, no sweat, all's well with world. But for it to go on as long as the other one did, there's no excuse. That's where the main point of contention came in. That no one PMd us about this innocent and boring looking thread.

 

If I didn't know better, I'd say you were referring to the one today (one that I hope only a few people know about). I hope the "exception" doesn't become more frequent with the rush of new members.

 

I don't know about one from today, this was last week sometime. It was about the worst thread I've ever seen here.

 

The one today was definitely the worst I've ever seen. I'm not sure what was worse... the actual thread, or that several people thought it was funny, with one person encouraging it not to be locked.

 

Ok, but then I would like to see some sort of list of cases in which you can and cant ban in such a way. I know it cant be exhaustive, because people will constantly push things, but some sort of guidelines about when this rule can be invoked. I know it cant also be too strict because you need some flexibility, but still, something so that everyone around knows what they are getting involved in if they post in the thread.

And I still dont like it being used on anyone and everyone that posts but doesnt PM. What about those that are asking if anyone has PMed a mod? Or those that express disgust at the thread? Are they to be lumped together with those that encourage?

Oh, and if anyone ever wanted to know whats its like in the AC, this is pretty much the sort of discussion that we might have.

 

I think the best common sense policy for users is to not get involved in any way, except for alerting a moderator if they wish. I don't understand people who feel they need to somehow contribute to a spam thread (or some other kind of no-no thread).

 

What about those that are asking if anyone has PMed a mod? Or those that express disgust at the thread? Are they to be lumped together with those that encourage?

It depends on what they do after that. If they express their outrage, or ask anyone's PMd a mod, and then go out and PM one of us, that's one case. If they express outrage and then don't do anything, just leave it for the next person, and pass it off as not their problem. that's another. That's where the problem comes in. In the case of the thread from last week, that's exactly what happened. People came in, posted how bad this was, and then left it, didn't do anything about it.

Yes, it may sound like a scare tatic, I'll admit that, but I guess, all we're trying to say, is take some responsibilty for the forum. Its not our (meaning the mods) forum, its everyone's (meaning everyone who posts here).

Think of this way. At home, your brother makes a mess in the kitchen, you go in and make a sandwhich, and comment on how messy it is, but don't clean up anything. Your mom is going to give you holy hell for not doing anything about it, "What were you raised in a barn!" You may not have made the mess, but you live there to, and you have to take some responsibilty for the state of the house. You knew there was a mess, but you left it for someone esle, (usually mom) to clean up. And because of that, you do have to take some responsibilty for your actions.

Does that make sense?

 

Ignoring your analogy , its all fine.

But then, what does this say:

3. Post in the thread without informing a Mod, and get banned

Thats different. Its hardly what we are discussing.

I really hope that when you guys decide on implementing these rules, you change that line. Its not what you are trying to say. It does nothing but misrepresent your case.

 

Think of this way. At home, your brother makes a mess in the kitchen, you go in and make a sandwhich, and comment on how messy it is, but don't clean up anything. Your mom is going to give you holy hell for not doing anything about it, "What were you raised in a barn!" You may not have made the mess, but you live there to, and you have to take some responsibilty for the state of the house. You knew there was a mess, but you left it for someone esle, (usually mom) to clean up. And because of that, you do have to take some responsibilty for your actions.

Does that make sense?


I'm not sure how well I like any analogy that portrays the mods as mommy and daddy and everybody else as the children.


But regardless of that, it seems that we're now heading down the road that not only can you get banned for what you do, you can get banned for what you don't do. I realize that the mods depend on help from members to sniff out the offensive stuff, but to hold a person liable for inaction, even in "extreme" cases, seems a bit too far.

 

Sometimes it may be a case that people have simpliy assumed that if the thread has been there for that long then someone would have already notified the mods. Maybe a better rule should be if you pm the mods then you should post in the thread that you have done so and who you pmed. If everyone did that, then people wouldn't assume that a mod has been pmed when they haven't, and would pm themselves. If that thread was large, and everyone who posted there pmed a mod, then some poor mod would end up with dozens of pm telling them the same thing.

Lyra

 

most people probably wouldn't post that they'd PM a mod. now, especially, doing something like that would just get you labeled as a mod-wannabe

 

Discussion as to whether VIP?s could create polls in Census. It was pointed out that the problem isn?t whether or not they can create polls in Census, but that they are creating polls in Census. The current policy is now that Mods and ex-Mods only are allowed to create them.



You've got me to thank for that

 

HAHAHAHA, this icon thing is funny , but it still has not acchieved its goal.

 

HAHAHAHA, this icon thing is funny , but it still has not acchieved its goal.

 

Eh, for a second I thought that thread they were talking about was one that I knew about. It wasn't, so now I have no opinion on the issue.

 

Gandolf...
"Discussed formalizing a ?Good Samaritan? rule. If this rule is instigated, users will have three options whenever they see objectionable material:
1. Report the thread to a Moderator
2. Ignore the thread, and not post anything into it
3. Post in the thread without informing a Mod, and get banned.
This discussion was precipitated by an instance of a thread filled with profanity and explicit sexual content existing for over a day before a Mod happened to click on it. This sort of thing should be immediately reported."

There's a fourth clear option which IMO solves any problems if it works out which was not listed:
4. If the thread is new, advise the offender that what he's created/posted may be considered objectionable and that he should edit his words.

This does a number of things which the other choices do, but with the added effect of it being done in a positive manner (as opposed to being viewed as gestapo police action).
1. It educates the ignorant/offending person.
2. It allows the ignorant/offending person to show he has learned proper conduct by allowing him to make the change.

Of the choices listed, all of them are after-the-fact police actions curing a symptom, not the problem. The problem was that someone may have misunderstood a rule. By banning the person or removing a thread, that may serve to alienate the offender.

However, by educating him/her and empowering them to make the change themselves, it serves to make him think he's a positive member of the community.

It goes back to "security" philosophy. You can police all you want, but somewhere, somehow someone will get through if they wish to. The only way it can never happen is if no one wishes to - that's true security.

That is, all of the options listed by Gandolf bypass the core problem - someone screwed up. There is an option to tell them they screwed up and allow them the opportunity to correct their screw-up.

IMO, that's worth more on a community-building philosophy than any number of mods removing and editing threads. The responsibility of the front line of defense against this sort of thing is the regular posters themselves. So, why were no "Good Samaritan" rules addressing that discussed?

I can quite honestly say this works, because I've done exactly that. Lit. is where I post the most often, and it's a forum which has a high "edit" time limit. I have on several occasions advised someone that they may wish to edit their words, and they've done so.

To me, this is solving a problem before it becomes a "problem." I will note that on other times, the advice has been ignored, in which case there are other options to explore, such as mod-notification.

It's a powerful tool - there's more of us than there are of mods. We can be more places, and for the most part good advice is usually followed, especially when you tell someone, "If you don't, you might be banned."