Clarification on what is "appropriate" material for the JC forums

KK,

"Quite simply, we have no obligation to explain ourselves to the public, nor do we need to justify our actions. The TOS are quite clear as to that. This board is not a democracy where everyone gets to vote on what the rules are. That authority and responsibility lies with the administration, at the direction of the board ownership."

As I stated earlier, your position here is identical to the stance Philip Wise took with the volunteer staff. You simply can't argue any point effectively so you are resorting to, "Because I can" answering. Fairly sad considering this forum is for discussion.

You clearly cannot counter any of my points, or you would have already done so.

The only people who don't want bannings to be discussed in public are the people issuing them. As several others pointed out, this is most certainly so you won't be held accountable for your actions. Yet, you attempt to chaulk it up to some strange desire to protect the banned user's privacy. If a banned user was concerned about their privacy, they simply wouldn't use the Comms thread. Again, another example of you trying to shift the discussion away from the points that I have made and me obliterating your objection handily.

Privacy isn't an issue because it would be the user who initiates the public discussion.

Easy.

And as far as your assertion that I could simply PM a higher ranking volunteer to get some kind of assistance, I would have you know that I did just that and I received absolutely no follow up. None. So I assume that my objection to the application of the rules in this case was completely and totally ignored. I don't believe anyone went back to review the posts in question, nor do I believe that anyone discussed the situation seriously with the moderator who banned me. If you can offer any semblance of proof otherwise, I would ask that you relay it to me here and I will concede at the very least, that the system isn't a complete failure.

 

The PM system does work for individual concerns and should always be the first means to communicate with a mod regarding an administrative action. However, it is the first in a series of contacts. When the AC was here, it was the second step, followed then by Communications. Two privates, then a public. Technically, the first two were PMs (to the mod responsible, then to the AC for review). However, since the AC received less support than Sharpton on his most vociferous day, that step is gone. Now, Comm. is the second stop

Here you are wrong. There are two stops to go to in private. First, contact the mod responsible. Second, contact an administrator about the issue. I investigate and respond to every PM complaint I receive. I know that Grilled-Sarlacc and Raven try to do the same. For an individual concern (such as over a ban, edit, or lock), Comms is not the place to go.

Comms is not the place for that sort of concern. It is not the place to come and complain about being banned, or that your thread was locked, or similar actions. It is here to discuss boardwide policy, not individual actions.

Kimball Kinnison

 

KK,

And the boardwide policy that we are discussing would effect all users, not just one.

I PM'd the Moderator who banned me. I didn't get a response until over 8 hours later. Not what I would consider effective communication.

In the mean time, I PM'd two other mods, one of which was yourself. You deferred to the judgement of the Mod who banned me. Hardly any accountability. You simply brushed me off with a stock answer, "Mod right, you wrong." I can post word for word if you'll allow it.

The other Mod told me they would look into it. I never recieved any response indicating that anything further occured. I assumed I was simply ignored.

Again, if you have proof otherwise, out with it.

 

In the mean time, I PM'd two other mods, one of which was yourself. You deferred to the judgement of the Mod who banned me. Hardly any accountability. You simply brushed me off with a stock answer, "Mod right, you wrong." I can post word for word if you'll allow it.

You assume that I didn't look into your case. I did.

I could see where that moderator would consider your actions inappropriate. I would have done the same if you had made those posts in the Senate (where I mod). Since I am not familiar with where the exact line is drawn in the JCC for such behavior, I did defer to that mod's judgement. I stand by that decision.

Since then, I have taken a more in-depth look at the matter, and I have only seen more posts in that thread that I would have edited with a warning or banned for (considering their number at the time). In other words, I still stand by that decision.

Other than the fact that you disagree with my judgement, what is there about the process I followed that is wrong with it?

Kimball Kinnison

 

So, you responded that you agree with the Moderator's actions and I'm supposed to now understand what actions that I took to warrant a banning?

Bottom line is that the Moderator included in her reason my behavior in the preceeding time frame, yet she never warned me, never edited a post, and never PM'd me. You can try to justify actions like that all you want, but in my world that's far from responsible and "borderline" laziness. I would expect that you would hold yourself and your fellow volunteers to a higher standard, especially given that it requires little additional (if any) workload.

I just can't understand how being courteous puts you out. It's ridiculous. How hard can it be to simply say, "Please tone it down in thread X, your behavior is borderlining on innappropriate. Thanks."? In my case, even an edit would have been sufficient to warn me.

I would still point out that each and every single one of my posts still stands as is, strange that posting behavior that falls outside of the "family friendly" atmosphere of the boards is allowed to stand unaltered.

 

You could of informed him that you were looking into the matter but wait for a better clairfication from the mod who did it. It's not fair for a user to have to wait 8 hours or is it fair for a user to do things that would get them banned. But everyone needs a reason. Maybe the MODS need a private board where they can post why the banned someone for the case they might be gone for 8 hours and another MOD could visit it and be like look this is their reasoning if you have any other questions please wait for them to show up.
I mean what if you were to get banned, would you want to wait 8 hours for an answer as to why? Probably not. It wouldn't be consider fair by you or other users who have been in the shoes. But what do I know I'm just the average everyday JCer.

~PK~

 

Maybe the MODS need a private board where they can post why the banned someone for the case they might be gone for 8 hours and another MOD could visit it and be like look this is their reasoning if you have any other questions please wait for them to show up.

Wouldn't this be in a person's user notes?

 

There's another approach to this whole thing that would make it easier on everyone.

Don't post something that will get you banned. If you have a ban history, know you're being watched more closely.

Seems easy enough to me.

 

If you think that I'm acting alone, go ahead and PM Grilled-Sarlacc. You'll see that I am speaking for all of us.

well, you used "I" alot. and GS and Raven, despite being admins of this forum, never post when issues are being discussed, so that was my point. i give you credit (at least) for communicating here, although communicating in the communications forum shouldn't be something any admin deserves credit for in the first place. anyway, i digress.

Individual bannings will never be appropriate for public discussion. That policy is not changing.

if that is your attitude, then i laugh even more at all the crying and moaning that went along with the whole Phil saga.

There are a couple of reasons for keeping it private:

1) It is none of your business who gets banned or why. The only bannings that you have any business being concerned about are your own.

I could care less about 90% of the bannings. i don't care who gets banned, or why, as long as the bans are justified. again you miss the point in your strict adherence to the pre-established customs -- the point is that providing the information publicly is a way to safeguard against unjust or biased actions, especially when the borderline rules are so subjective. this is to help the mods, and the JC, not because i have some fetish for wanting to know who gets banned and why.

2) Administrative actions do not require public scrutiny on every level.

no, not always. of course not.

Comms is not here for remedying individual concerns, but to act as a general discussion forum on board policy. Individual actions are not for discussion here. That is what the PM system is for.

this isn't just about individual actions. this is about a board policy which deals with individual actions taken by mods. and bringing a complaint to comms about an individual banning would not JUST be about that one particular banning, but a mechanism to promote board policy.

Also, you are misinterpreting my commetn about "too many PMs". Most users don't take any responsibility for their actions. I cannot count the number of unban requests that start with "I'm innocent", or "I didn't do anything wrong!" PM warnigns often go the same way. It becomes a drawn out debate over whether it really is an offense or not.

i know it becomes a drawn out debate. this is what causes problems. by making it public, we are reducing this seemingly common problem.

Well guess what? The final determination of whether it violated the TOS lies with the moderator, not the user.

yes, but the moderator is just a USER themselves. they are NOT immune to making mistakes. you will agree with that.

And we do make mistakes and try to fix them as soon as possible. Just this last week, Sapient and I banned one sock because it appeared that the user was posting while banned. They were banned, but it was a game ban (and a warning was entered into their notes shortly after that ban, confusing us). Once it was pointed out to us, we unbanned the user and sent a prompt apology to them.

yay, it worked this time because the banning was obvious. we're talking about the borderline, subjective cases.

Mistakes happen, but when they do, it is not appropriate to come and debate it out in Comms.

how is it not appropriate? i don't want you to answer that.

Simply contact an administrator for assistance. We try our very best to be as fair as possible.

sometimes the best is not good enough.

Quite simply, we have no obligation to explain ourselves to the public, nor do we need to justify our actions. The TOS are quite clear as to that. This board is not a democracy where everyone gets to vote on what the rules are. That authority and responsibility lies with the administration, at the direction of the board ownership.

you do not NEED to explain yourselves. you do not NEED to justify your actions. but what kind of JC are we left with when mods can ban

 

It woudl be but if they are the only ones who can get to the board. Even if you click on it it would say this is a locked board you can not access it. I remember when there were 3 private boards on here. Believe me other users tried to get into them. But it was stated here that you can't get into them because they are discussing things that will change the was the boards run forever.

If they had this they could be more helpful to the rest of the JC. For such questions as My thread was closed why? I was banned why? The MOD who did this isn't here please help me random other MOD. I'm sure the MODs do get annoyed with pm after pm. And not being able to give the answers. This way they could give the answers and maybe understand why the JCer who did this is even talking to them.

~PK~

 

Okay Brad, everyone knows that certain things can get you banned, but what we're talking about here are things that are not defined by any written rules, grey area if you will. What I am asking for is clarification on what is and isn't a banable offense. Since apparently, the staff here simply can't provide us with rules that outline acceptable behavior, I'm asking that they issue a simple warning when they see behavior that is "borderline".

We're not talking about "trolls" or "problem users". We're talking about iffy behavior.

 

I just can't understand how being courteous puts you out. It's ridiculous. How hard can it be to simply say, "Please tone it down in thread X, your behavior is borderlining on innappropriate. Thanks."? In my case, even an edit would have been sufficient to warn me.

Even though an edit would have been sufficient, the mod determined otherwise. One point that many people in this thread seem to not understand is that the burden of proof does not lie with the moderators, but with the users. It is not up to us to interpret your behavior as it really is. It is up to you to behave in such a way that we can't misinterpret it.

What you are proposinge would in effect be adding a loophole to the current system. For extremely mild actions, yeah, a warning should be issued, but where do you draw the line? As things get progressively worse, when can you ban without warning? When it is a clear violation? How about in the case of a flame that's just a joke between two friends (still against the rules, I might add)? If a person gets banned for that, should the be unbanned immediately because they weren't warned? How about a user who gives every indication of being a sock/serial troll (but not conclusively), and is performing borderline behavior? Should they have to get warned before being banned?

Where do you draw the line?

I would still point out that each and every single one of my posts still stands as is, strange that posting behavior that falls outside of the "family friendly" atmosphere of the boards is allowed to stand unaltered.

Because some offenses may be ban-worthy but not editable or deletable.

For example, the JCC has a 3-thread rule saying you are only allowed to start 3 threads per day. If you start 4, then you can be banned for spamming, but that doesn't mean that they delete or necessarily lock the thread.

In the same way, spamming a thread may be bannable but the posts may not be removed.

You could of informed him that you were looking into the matter but wait for a better clairfication from the mod who did it. It's not fair for a user to have to wait 8 hours or is it fair for a user to do things that would get them banned. But everyone needs a reason. Maybe the MODS need a private board where they can post why the banned someone for the case they might be gone for 8 hours and another MOD could visit it and be like look this is their reasoning if you have any other questions please wait for them to show up.

Most actions are resolved quite quickly. For example, when I accidentally banned a sock (as described earlier), the total time from ban to unban was less than 1 hour.

But we have resources available to us, such as user notes and the ban system (listing the reason, date, time, and any unban requests). We have to enter a reason for a ban, or else we can't ban the user. That usually gives enough information to independently investigate, regardless of when the mods are on.

Kimball Kinnison

 

"What you are proposinge would in effect be adding a loophole to the current system. For extremely mild actions, yeah, a warning should be issued, but where do you draw the line? As things get progressively worse, when can you ban without warning? When it is a clear violation? How about in the case of a flame that's just a joke between two friends (still against the rules, I might add)? If a person gets banned for that, should the be unbanned immediately because they weren't warned? How about a user who gives every indication of being a sock/serial troll (but not conclusively), and is performing borderline behavior? Should they have to get warned before being banned?

Where do you draw the line? "

Again you're off with "serial trolls" and the like. I have clarified numerous times that I am speaking directly about normal posters. The only way you can provide a defense to your argument is to point out the extreme element of the boards. Again, I don't care what you do with the perpetual violators.

What are you afraid of? Let's say that you warn a user and find out later that he is, in fact, a troll. What has changed? The troll gets to hang out for a few more posts? You haven't revoked your ability to ban them.

Bottom line, warnings would be helpful to people who legitimately want to post here without being banned by a Mod who is secretly watching their "borderline" behavior and doing so privately.

Warnings would not be as helpful when dealing with the obviously problematic element, but they would clearly not enable those elements either.

Warn first, ban second. No harm, no foul.

 

Yes but what about us other users who try to follow the rules that might do something that is deemed questionable. But we don't know cause its in that grey area. And we get banned and we don't know why. All we're asking for is a chance to know without getting banned in the first place and not having to decide for ourselves. Because we could say maybe I think using sexual terms in a discret way is ok when a MOD doesn't and another does. Where is the fairness in that. And its not fair to not let someone know you're not looking into their case. They're left to assume they have to wait for the one who banned them to show up and explain why.

You as a MOD who looked into it. At least owes them enough to say hey I looked into it this is what I think but to get an offical call you need to wait on the one who banned you. Because I can't get into their minds. As a MOD you owe the JCer's answers when they ask questions. Just because you're a MOD doesn't give you the righto be like Just Because Deal. They need answers when they ask questions else they don't trust you and then things get worse and thats never a good policy for running a board.

~PK~

 

Again you're off with "serial trolls" and the like. I have clarified numerous times that I am speaking directly about normal posters. The only way you can provide a defense to your argument is to point out the extreme element of the boards. Again, I don't care what you do with the perpetual violators.

But how do you differentiate between a "normal user" and a serial troll trying to look like a normal user?

For example, spamming threads with borderline baits and flames is a common tactic of serial trolls. Going into a political thread talking about a candidate and repeatedly posting a joke website about that candidate would fall under that. Going into a thread on a certain religion and poking fun at that religion would also fall under that. When the behavior is so similar, how do you differentiate?

I am not going to an extreme element to find a defense because none other exists, but because they are common and act in the same fashion. By your reasoning, we should have to warn even teh serial trolls, if we can't tell for sure whether they are trolls or not.

I'm sorry, but that is not an acceptable solution. While warnings should be issued for minor offenses, they do not have to be issued. I don't see that changing any time soon.

What are you afraid of? Let's say that you warn a user and find out later that he is, in fact, a troll. What has changed? The troll gets to hang out for a few more posts? You haven't revoked your ability to ban them.

And the more we let them get away with, the more they try to get away with.

And let's be honest here. What are you really complaining about? A 24-hour ban for such an offense (unless it is clear that you are a serial troll). 24 hours. We aren't hauling your firstborn child into slavery, nor are we sentencing you to 20 years of hard labor. It is 24 hours of not being allowed to post at a Star Wars message board, which you have not right to be posting at in the first place.

As I said before, a ban can act as a warning as well. You can simply accept that you did something inappropriate and move on after the ban is up. If you get a ban longer than 24 hours for a minor offense (with no proir record), then I would agree that it needs to be looked into, but beyond that you are really raising a fuss over essentially nothing.

Kimball Kinnison

 

"But how do you differentiate between a "normal user" and a serial troll trying to look like a normal user?"

You're right. The obvious solution is to just ban all the normal users. I mean, you can't ever be 100% sure, right?

A "normal" user will get the warning and most likely, alter their behavior. A "serial troll" mistaken for a normal user will get the warning and completely ignore it, at which point you will ban them. Obvious serial trolls will just be banned straight away. People who break the TOS will be banned straight away.

The only people that such an adjustment is going to benefit is the normal posters and isn't that who you would rather cater to?

 

It is none of your business who gets banned or why.

The "who" may not be our business, but the "why" certainly is - because, presumably, we could get banned for the same behavior. Like it or not, many users get their guidelines for acceptable behavior from what they see on the boards, not by reading the TOS. Why? Because not only are the TOS not strictly enforced (if they were, there would be no sexually related content of any kind permitted on the forums - right?), but there are areas that the TOS don't seem to cover.

If we see something on the boards, and we aren't told by the mods that it's inappropriate or a banworthy offense, how do we know that it's not acceptable behavior?

Sure, we could try to stay as far within the TOS as possible, but who would want to chat on a board populated solely by Rod & Todd Flanders?


Since I am not familiar with where the exact line is drawn in the JCC for such behavior, I did defer to that mod's judgement.

There, you see? You admit that the lines are drawn differently in the different forums, by different mods - are we supposed to track different rules from one forum to the next, and keep track of which mod's on duty?

As an example of the frustration this has caused: the other day, I saw an interesting topic in the JCC. I posted in the thread, and tried to bring it to something of a serious discussion, because that's how I like to explore certain topics. However, once that happened, the thread was closed - because, apparently, the JCC is not intended for serious discussion or debate.

Such rules are, as far as I can tell, invented by the administration and never committed to writing. The users only find about this sort of forum-specific rule when their topics are locked or they are suddenly banned.


If you have a ban history, know you're being watched more closely.

Different strokes for different folks?

Or is your first ban your "warning" that you'll be banned more readily in the future?


i know it becomes a drawn out debate. this is what causes problems. by making it public, we are reducing this seemingly common problem.

Not necessarily - making it public might make the debate more drawn out, if one user's buddies decide to make a fuss about why he was banned. However, I still think we should be given the reasons a person may be banned (we don't need to know who was banned for that reason) so we can discuss it openly with the mods and make sure everyone's clear on the policy.

 

"As an example of the frustration this has caused: the other day, I saw an interesting topic in the JCC. I posted in the thread, and tried to bring it to something of a serious discussion, because that's how I like to explore certain topics. However, once that happened, the thread was closed - because, apparently, the JCC is not intended for serious discussion or debate."

How ironic. I was banned for not being serious in a serious discussion thread posted in the YJCC.

How's that for consistency?

 

Well, here we go again. A thread in Comms just got deleted, probably because it was trying to publicly discuss a banning.

"We don't talk about the Goosey Goblin."


So, let me pose some more general questions:

Is the word "porn" inappropriate? (Apparently not.)

Or pornstar?

Again, we have this issue of inconsistent enforcement. Apparently, jokes about porn are sometimes considered appropriate.

I guess it's just a question of whether the thread was already at that level, or if the sexually oriented joke was unexpected.

 

I deleted that thread after it was locked by another moderator.

As has been clearly stated before, bans will not be discussed in public nor will they be discussed in any specificity with anyone other than the user banned.

And that ban is not a case of inconsistent enforcement. It would be wrong (especially in this case) to assume that simply because a user is banned that they were banned only for their most recent post. Sometimes it is an aggregate of multiple posts and/or warnings that they have received.

Kimball Kinnison

 

So, when a user's post is edited saying "Inappropriate", we don't know whether that means:

1. This instance was a ban-worthy offense (which might appear to be inconsistent enforcement)

2. This instance was edited, but the user was not banned (does this ever happen, or does the "Inappropriate" edit always equal a ban?)

3. The user was banned for this post, but another user would not have been if they had not made other borderline posts for which they were warned


Personally, I suspect it's 1. I am under the distinct impression that some people are getting banned for the same behavior that others demonstrate without reproach.

I call that inconsistent. It'd be nice if there was something more like a policy on this sort of thing.


So, are sexually oriented jokes allowed, or aren't they? Are they only allowed if they fit the tone of the thread?

 

You would be incorrect in your assumptions. I will leave it at that.

So, are sexually oriented jokes allowed, or aren't they? Are they only allowed if they fit the tone of the thread?

The exact limits of this and other matters are under discussion. Suffice it to say that there are going to be some changes soon in the JCC to crack down on a lot of inappropriate behavior and eliminate some double standards that have been allowed to exist for too long.

Kimball Kinnison

 

Cracking down on inappropriate behavior has been attempted before (the original JCC Reform of 2002), with poor results at best. The most likely result is the alienation of various people, while handing victory (such as it can be achieved on the JC) to a small minority.

In short, what is inappropriate is often subjective, and eliminating double standards is little more than an idealistic hope as long as there are two or three dozen moderators with two or three dozen opinions on what should be done.

It's possible to achieve both when it comes to situations that most will agree on, but not for many other things that moderators and members alike see on a daily basis.

 

Suffice it to say that there are going to be some changes soon in the JCC to crack down on a lot of inappropriate behavior and eliminate some double standards that have been allowed to exist for too long.

Um, what? The JCC is humming along just fine. Ain't broke, don't fix, and all that jazz. Unless this is an effort to kill fun.

Amazing.

 

Bane is correct about the AC. It was a key part of the protective shield which surrounded regular users. When it was removed, a gaping hole in the users' defense against wayward moderating was opened up.