Mod Squad Update for the Week Ending January 22, 2004

Good point, but the TOS does cover enough ground that using it as a justification for banning would, I think, work more often than not. If not, then perhaps pointing the individual forum threads you mentioned would also work.

That would work just as well. Either way, it's simply allowing a user to know that they have reached a point whre if they continue then they have no excuse, they must take responsibility for their own actions and the repurcussions....and the mod who warns can be sure that the user has had every possible opportunity to read the TOS and stop whatever they're doing and avoid their own banning.

I think that this would be more necessary for newer users, people who haven't been around as much and aren't as familiar with the site. People like you and me, who have been posting here for years, really don't have an excuse - if we've been around this long, we should know what the deal is. We've had more than ample time to read the TOS.

 

Hood,
Would you argue that the definition of baiting, flaming, and other interpretational offenses is uniform across all the boards here?

 

Basically, yes. I realize, though, that it's enforced at different levels in different forums, which is why I mentioned the forum threads.

 

So are you saying that by reading the TOS a user would understand the definition of these offenses in every different forum?
Mild baiting, for instance, is allowed in Comms but I would suspect in other areas it is not.
Checking through the TOS how would one get this distinction?

 

Just out of curiosity, did you miss where I pointed out that directing users to the individual forum threads, in addition to the TOS, might be a good idea (twice, I might add)?

 

Well your right Hood.
By the way, could you give me a link where I would be able to tell that mild baiting is acceptable in Comms?

 

"Maybe it's easier for some people to argue an issue to death than to agree with someone they don't like?"

Irony!

 

Bane...
"Would you argue that the definition of baiting, flaming, and other interpretational offenses is uniform across all the boards here? ...Mild baiting, for instance, is allowed in Comms but I would suspect in other areas it is not. Checking through the TOS how would one get this distinction?"

Bane, you're argument is a bit misleading, and misses a key fundamental part of the TOS. The TOS is not written in "internet-speak" or "TFN.speak." Rather it is written in clear, unambiguous english language including "harrassment," "abuse," "hateful," "defamatory."

As for your question of how one gets a distinction of any forum-specific rules, the TOS addresses it: "In order to contact a moderator who can help you with your questions, simply check the "users online" page, and look for any user with a multi-colored name (there are, however, some 'VIP's' with colored names. Please click on the actual user's name to view his or her profile. If the profile says moderator, manager, or administrator next to their name, they can help you with your questions)." So, ignorance is not necessarily an excuse on that one.

If you follow the TOS, and more specifically, the first paragraph of the "Rules of Conduct," then you will NEVER be close to engaging in any of the items you suggest are ambiguous, by virtue of what those items are. That's not to say that some of them may emphasize a particular nuance over something that's listed in the TOS, but that's a minor issue. If you always follow the TOS, then you're 99.9999% of the way there. And can that extra 0.0001% use some further clarification? Probably. But, then, society also expects of thirteen year-olds a little bit of common sense as well. Can one not realize what sort of moderated message board this is going to be when they see "Do not post hateful comments," "Do not harass other users," "Do not defame people," "Do not abuse people," "Respect other users' opinions and beliefs..."

There is a definite picture which can be painted using those. And not a single arbitrary term like "flaming," "baiting," etc. has been used to define that picture.

 

So if your point is true G-12, why exactly would the Head Admin admit that perhaps it would be a good idea to contact people pre-emptively in cases of baiting?

I must disagree with you on the issue of the TOS being that clear cut. A week in Comms will produce several pieces of evidence to make one think there are a wide degree of interpretations of different meanings. Issues dealing with "intent" being the most obvious.

What do you tend to do in these situations Genghis?
It seems to me that often if a mod would step in and warn people that they are getting close it would do wonders to defuse potentially bad situations. In my experience I have seen this happen many times and that's what confuses me, in regards to why this suggestion meets so much resistance?
Often times it seems the Mods on TFN go out of there way to not ban people and to try to lighten up heavy situations, but yet in this thread the opposite idea is being championed. That is what lead me to believe there is more going on than just the issue at hand.

 

Bane...
"So if your point is true G-12, why exactly would the Head Admin admit that perhaps it would be a good idea to contact people pre-emptively in cases of baiting?"

Because that's right. You're blurring the lines between responsibilities of users and enforcement of them by the mods. If users never post anything hateful, abusive, harrassing... always has respect for other's opinions and beliefs, etc. Doesn't post inappropriate content. Then we wouldn't need to be here. Because this site isn't the perfect ideal, then that's when moderators enter the picture. And then a balance needs to be struck between having users and accepting some lower level other than the ideal for some of them, or not having any users, but perfect adherence to the site ettiquette. But, what can't be lost in that assessment is the fact that if one didn't ever engage in any negative behavior at all, then there's no reason to defuse anything.

"I must disagree with you on the issue of the TOS being that clear cut. A week in Comms will produce several pieces of evidence to make one think there are a wide degree of interpretations of different meanings. Issues dealing with "intent" being the most obvious."

But, again, the concepts found in the TOS don't hinge upon intent. Something can be hateful, without ever relying on anyone's intent. Something can be abusive without ever having to gauge intent. A user can still be harassed without ever having to know intent.

"What do you tend to do in these situations Genghis?"

I've found it to be best to give the user their own rope and enough of it to hang themselves. I happen to believe that the least intrusive enforcement actions tends to yield the most interesting, thought-provoking and good discussions. And that's to say talking to users in private to make sure they're aware of this site's rules, discussing with them when they are behaving poorly, etc.

"It seems to me that often if a mod would step in and warn people that they are getting close it would do wonders to defuse potentially bad situations. In my experience I have seen this happen many times and that's what confuses me, in regards to why this suggestion meets so much resistance?"

To be clear, I'm in agreement with you 100%. But, I think I know where the misunderstanding is.

I believe in both parties upholding their end of the deal.

Users must know their responsibilities, and I question any attempts to let them off the hook. By the same token, moderators need to create an environment where discussion can and should take place.

So, I agree that warnings are good enforcement tools. But, my point is that we ought not to be jumping a step in there. The first step to a moderator giving a warning before a ban is recognizing why the user has to be warned to begin with, and why a "situation which needs to be defused" exists to begin with.

If both users were accepting of the others opinions and beliefs, and neither user was abusing, harassing or otherwise posting hateful comments, then I hardly believe any situation can reach a boiling point which would require moderator involvement.

So, while seemingly you're just focusing on one area (the moderator's actions), I'm suggesting that the whole picture needs to be taken into account.

I don't disagree with you that there are good and better methods of moderation. I try to use them when I can. But, by the same token, there is also good and better posting practices by users which remove any discrepencies on the moderator-side entirely.

Any user's experiences here begins with that user, not the moderators.

 

I'm suggesting mods should use their common sense and human interaction skills more often to warn a user privately before banning and it's not being taken very well by people like KW, Genghis, AmazingB and Kimball_Kinnison. Anyone find their Catch-22 more than mildly amusing?

And what makes you think that I don't do that? For example, in the last month (according to the logs), I have banned 5 people. 1 was an immediate request for help in another forum, 1 was a sock of a banned user, 1 was a user who wrote a long post filled with profanity in Comms (that I happended to come across first), and 2 were for two users in the Senate who ignored several warnings to stop going for each others' throats.

Usually, I try to resolve issues with individual posters and get them to back down without banning them. However, that doesn't mean that that is the only way I should ever have to act.

I've used bans to get peoples' attention before, as well. With at least two newer members of the forums, PMs didn't work because they didn't even know they were there. Instead, I wound up banning them and then unbanning them as soon as they submitted an unban request. In that way, I caught their attention, was able to tell them about PMs, and resolved the issue rather quickly. (Unfortunately, in both cases, I later had to ban the same users for the same thing, so I guess they didn't heed the warnings enough.)

It seems to me that often if a mod would step in and warn people that they are getting close it would do wonders to defuse potentially bad situations. In my experience I have seen this happen many times and that's what confuses me, in regards to why this suggestion meets so much resistance?
Often times it seems the Mods on TFN go out of there way to not ban people and to try to lighten up heavy situations, but yet in this thread the opposite idea is being championed. That is what lead me to believe there is more going on than just the issue at hand.

There are several reasons.

First, while most mods (including myself) try to warn users before banning them, that is not always the best approach. Especially when dealing with regular members of a forum, they know what the rules are and know how people will tend to react. In such situations, a mod should not have to repeatedly warn a user before banning them.

Second, with the ability to delete PMs coming up, it would be relatively easy for a user to claim that they never got a warning and accuse a mod of lying. Stating that mods are required to warn via PM (or any similar method) before banning only invites trouble as this new feature is implemented in the next week or so.

Finally, it is ultimately the user's responsibility to follow the rules. If you aren't sure exactly where the line is, don't try to push it. Give yourself a margin of error. The more you try to push the limits of what is allowed, the more you create the impression that you don't really care what the rules are, and have no desire to understand or follow them. If you have questions, PM a mod, and they will be glad to help you.

Kimball Kinnison

 

There is a definite picture which can be painted using those. And not a single arbitrary term like "flaming," "baiting," etc. has been used to define that picture.

the words "defamatory," "abusive," "hateful," "harassing," "threatening," are all just as arbitrary, genghis.

 

Not quite. If you've managed to make it through at least thirteen years of life not knowing what any of those mean, then it's about time to learn. It's the same as in any published dictionary you might have. It's the same as American society has over time (i.e. non-arbitrarily) derived meaning for them.

We're not inventing a new language here.

 

I'm suggesting mods should use their common sense and human interaction skills more often to warn a user privately before banning and it's not being taken very well by people like KW, Genghis, AmazingB and Kimball_Kinnison.

That's a nice and faulty read on the whole situation. You have no idea how often any mod uses the PM system, so you can't very well go commenting that it's not being used enough. All I've been arguing is that accountability falls on both sides of the coin, it's not all the administration's fault. If someone doesn't read the TOS and breaks the rules, they are subject to the same punishment as someone who has the entire TOS memorized who breaks the rules, since as you've said, there's no way of knowing who has and hasn't actually read it. But since every user agrees to the TOS every time they post, it's up to them to read it. Buyer beware, and all that.

Anyone find their Catch-22 more than mildly amusing?

For someone so quick to accuse others of baiting, you don't seem to have any problem doing it yourself.

Is it really that hard to simply PM someone with a warning?

As far as I know, unless it's something pretty serious, users always get a warning before a ban. Every so often someone suggests that everyone should get a warning for their first offense, rather than ever immediately jumping to bans, but that gives everyone a freebie, which isn't a good idea.

I also find it very strange that a few of the people in this thread arguing so hard against these points are the same people I have witnessed going out of there way to warn people and try to diffuse situations.

That's not what I've been arguing against. I've been arguing against the idea that a user is not to blame if they haven't read the TOS or are otherwise ignorant of the rules.

The TOS is not the be-all-and-end-all of rules here on the JC.

That's also true, and I think I brought that point up in another thread here in Comms. But that still doesn't mean people who break the rules should be absolved because they didn't know them. If a mod assumes a user didn't read the TOS, as DA has suggested, and then PMs the user with a link to the TOS and a warning, but the user chooses to ignore the PM, it's the same situation. Not that I think that would necessarily happen, but just because a mod PMs a user with a link to the TOS, it doesn't mean they'll read it. There's just as much guarantee that they'll read it then as when they signed up. Which is why, as I said earlier, that mods have to work under the assumption that everyone has read the TOS. That doesn't mean mods should always jump straight to a ban and should never bother with warnings, and I've never once suggested that.

Amazing.

 

Not quite. If you've managed to make it through at least thirteen years of life not knowing what any of those mean, then it's about time to learn. It's the same as in any published dictionary you might have. It's the same as American society has over time (i.e. non-arbitrarily) derived meaning for them.

We're not inventing a new language here.

don't insult my intelligence, kid, i know what the words mean. they are arbitrary in application. the statement "i'm gonna kill you" could be interpreted as "threatening" OR NOT. and considering what some mods around here call "inflammatory" and "harassing" i can't help but wonder sometimes what is going on in their heads.

 

Is there not a standard as far as what is defammatory and considered flaming? There should be a list of words and sentences used in context that are the standard for how the mods should "rule" their particular forums. It would make the whole banning process a lot better. There shouldn't be a difference in the Comm forum compared to the Senate. If someone violates the TOS then they should be dealt with accordingly.

 

Vaderfett...
"don't insult my intelligence, kid, i know what the words mean."

And it's not unreasonable to assume that every user of this site knows what the words mean. Which is why such clear, basic words are good for this application.

And the responsibility for your posting begings with you, not with the moderators.

"the statement "i'm gonna kill you" could be interpreted as "threatening" OR NOT. and considering what some mods around here call "inflammatory" and "harassing" i can't help but wonder sometimes what is going on in their heads."

And this exactly proves the point. If you don't ever post anything that can reasonably be interpreted by American society to be contrary to the basic words used, then you won't ever have any problems.

If you never post that you're going to kill anyone, then you won't ever have any enforcement done on the grounds that you're threatening to kill someone.

 

And this exactly proves the point. If you don't ever post anything that can reasonably be interpreted by American society to be contrary to the basic words used, then you won't ever have any problems.

If you never post that you're going to kill anyone, then you won't ever have any enforcement done on the grounds that you're threatening to kill someone.

That's why I'm saying the ban, as far defammatory statements, should be analyzed based on the context of the post. If someone posts "I'm gonna kill you" after someone else posts "I just totally blew up your car..." or whatever...that's a bad example, but you get the idea. Looked at in context, it can be seen as a joking statement. While they did technically violate the TOS by saying "I'm gonna kill you"...the context of the conversation shows that it could have been used in a joking manner.

 

So here's just my stupid question of the week:

How exactly does such an unban request work??
Do you have to write a post to the mod who banned you and apologize for what you did and promise not to do it again - or how do I have to imagine that procedure??

I'm just curious now - I mean, if I was ever banned, I'd probably be too embarassed to ever come back to this place at all - but it would be nice to know, anyway.

 

And the responsibility for your posting begings with you, not with the moderators.

and the mods are responsible for their interpretation and application of the rules. if a mod says that i'm "harassing" someone when i say "now please leave me alone" and then bans me, that ban is a result of an unreasonable interpretation. you guys keep saying that it's all on the members, as if mods don't ever make mistakes when banning people.

And this exactly proves the point. If you don't ever post anything that can reasonably be interpreted by American society to be contrary to the basic words used, then you won't ever have any problems.

and your point is unrealistic. because verbatim statements/words on their own are rarely the end all be all of their meaning in use. literal interpretation of words and word groupings are not the way people's minds are expected to work. everyone knows what context is and everyone knows that words often times have mutliple meanings, even in the same use of the word.

If you never post that you're going to kill anyone, then you won't ever have any enforcement done on the grounds that you're threatening to kill someone.

i got bad news for you, the english language doesn't work that way. the way things are said often times determines the meaning, particularly when words have different meanings, and especially when phrases and figures of speech are thrown in. the average monkey knows that the statement "i'm gonna kill you" is very commonly said without literal meaning. people say things in jest, as an expression, and i can't believe i have to explain the obvious here.

if you enforced rules the way you've implied then you'd have to ban pretty much everyone, because everyone says things on a daily basis that could be interpreted as being in violation of the TOS/ROC based on their literal meaning.

 

VF has just made my point of banning according to context. Although, he puts it a lot more eloquently, that's what I'm trying to say. If we went completely by the TOS without making exceptions, everyone would be banned, like VF said. Supposedly, there are going to be changes made to the TOS. Perhaps banning policies could be put in as well. Explain to someone exactly what will happen, quite specifically.

 

Vader Fett...
"you guys keep saying that it's all on the members, as if mods don't ever make mistakes when banning people."

Wrong. I just said but a few posts up that there are two distinct, different sets of responsibilities here. The user has certain expectations, given in the TOS (Rules of Conduct, forum rules, Informational Threads, etc.) and the moderators have just as important, but different set of responsibilities. Your assertion that "you guys keep saying" is not accurate.

"if you enforced rules the way you've implied then you'd have to ban pretty much everyone, because everyone says things on a daily basis that could be interpreted as being in violation of the TOS/ROC based on their literal meaning."

Which was exactly my point in my 7:15a.m. post:"Because this site isn't the perfect ideal, then that's when moderators enter the picture. And then a balance needs to be struck between having users and accepting some lower level other than the ideal for some of them, or not having any users, but perfect adherence to the site ettiquette. "

We're in complete agreement with moderators responsibilities. What's been missing in your (and others') assesment of the equation is the responsibility on the part of the users.

 

There should be a list of words and sentences used in context that are the standard for how the mods should "rule" their particular forums. It would make the whole banning process a lot better.

Can you give an example of what you'd put on such a list? I've argued a few times before that if a person doesn't think moderating should be done solely by a bot that censors out certain words, they also can't propose that moderators' hands be tied so much that they have no more freedom in their actions than machines. Comments that are defamatory or baiting are, by definition, unacceptable because of their connotations, not any specific word or set of words that's written. That's probably also why people like to argue about things like baiting so much - a mod may call a particular comment baiting, and the user may say it wasn't, and there's no logical way to resolve that difference because it's entirely a matter of personal opinion. But there is a certain normal range of what most people consider offensive, and in moderating, we generally try to cater to that standard rather than our personal opinions. A good rule of thumb for members is to keep the same standard in mind. So before posting, a good check to see if something crosses the line of one of those "intent" clauses in the TOS is to consider how several representative people you know might react to it.

That's why it baffles me that some people defend the right of users to post borderline offensive material in Comms. (Note that I'm not trying to tar any specific individuals here, because I've seen members from all backgrounds do this at times, including the occasional mod, and to me it's equally disappointing to see someone do it no matter who they are.) The poster can always argue that they don't think what they posted was terribly offensive, but I know as a fact if I asked some random people who'd never seen the JC before to read some posts here and tell me if they thought some discussions were getting too heated, they'd almost certainly say yes.

I don't know, maybe my city isn't like the rest of the world, but I sometimes see people post things on these boards that would never, ever be said on the streets of New York.

There shouldn't be a difference in the Comm forum compared to the Senate.

Why?

I know that sounds good on paper, but the purposes and member bases of those two forums (or almost any two forums on the JC) are different enough that it makes sense to enforce different rules as needed.

 

"I don't know, maybe my city isn't like the rest of the world, but I sometimes see people post things on these boards that would never, ever be said on the streets of New York."

It's simple. Saying certain things in real life can get you a fist to the nose. Chances are, saying the same things online won't.

 

No, they'll get you banned instead.