Policy Changes: How do you feel?

[Niccos Shadow]

Disclaimer: I primarily stick to the Spoiler sections so I'm likely uninformed about a lot of things people are talking about here.

I think the rules are perfectly acceptable and I believe that by posting we are accepting and agreeing to comply with said rules/policies. However, the enforcement is sometimes lacking. Below are a few examples of what I mean:

I'm not saying these problems occur every time a mod/admin steps in. I'm merely commenting on things I have seen in those posts I have actually read, which I see as an issue.

One problem I see is sometimes Mods / Admins jump in with a remark that is, in my opinion, more snide / rude/ offensive than anything previously posted in the thread to 'warn' people that they are beginning to go down the path that will result in a Ban / Suspension / locked thread. I think it would be better in these instances for mods/admins to just PM the offending poster(s). And I understand it gets frustrating to 'police' forums, but if mods/admins lose their cool and make the same kind of posts they're trying to prevent, it doesn't really solve anything.

Another problem is when the mod/admin intervention is vague and directed at an entire thread in general. There's a difference between a friendly heated debate and a rude heated debate. There's been a few thread I was involved in in which I felt people were doing an excellent job at keeping the text passive. But after Mods/Admins jumped in, I found myself re-reading all the posts trying to find the hidden jabs and such. It kind of promotes a sense of paranoia. I don't really agree with calling people out in the open, but if you're going to jump in and slap down a thread/debate in the open, might as well be specific.

Also, when 3 + Mods jump a thread within the course of a few hours before anyone else even comments. I understand the need for authority figures to support each other, but sometimes it comes off more like people just throwing their weight around. I think if one mod is handling it and people are complying, there's no reason for 2 or more to also jump in with a bunch of caps locked threats, etc.

Also , going back to the non-specific comments. I've seen cases where multiple threads have equal "heat values", but only one gets slapped down. And since it's not specifically clear on why that one was selected to get slapped down, it tends to make one wonder if it the choice had as much to do with the posters involved as it did with the actual posts. This (I hope) is simply a by-product of not knowing exactly why one thread is being moderated and not the other(s), but as it stands it leaves a lot to interpretation.

[meh]

Simple fact is, we will never be able to police everything.  There aren't enough of us to be the Debate Procedural Fact Police in every occassion.  So we focus on the worst case behavior, and address issues as people bring them to us.  Rudeness, disrespectful and offensive behaviour, etc. 

Sometimes, a body just plain doesn't like how another body argues.  Sometimes we just don't like the cut of their jib.  "Alpha Fox 6, Do NOT engage!  Repeat, do NOT engage!"  If somebody's being rude, disrespectful, report them.  But if someone just gets on your nerves because you feel their approach to a debate is improper, then don't try to win a pissing contest with a skunk.  Now, if that skunk follows you all around the damn place and is clearly acting like Max Cady in Cape Fear, jumping on everything you say... then you could have an issue to bring us.   

Oh, I understand all this quite well.       I don't expect there to be a stick to punish each and every offender.   

I am rather pointing out that there are no more carrots than there were before.   

[Starbeam]

Also , going back to the non-specific comments. I've seen cases where multiple threads have equal "heat values", but only one gets slapped down. And since it's not specifically clear on why that one was selected to get slapped down, it tends to make one wonder if it the choice had as much to do with the posters involved as it did with the actual posts. This (I hope) is simply a by-product of not knowing exactly why one thread is being moderated and not the other(s), but as it stands it leaves a lot to interpretation.

For this particular instance, it could possibly be that one thread was reported while others were not.  There are so many quick moving threads in the spoilers section, that it's likely very difficult to keep track of what's being said and done where.  Which is why the mods say to report any problems.  They likely won't know about it until it's reported.

[Niccos Shadow]

For this particular instance, it could possibly be that one thread was reported while others were not. 

This makes sense.

[Noey]

If I have nothing positive to contribute, then I don't contribute, and I've never had a problem. All the mods are asking is that people stop and think. I also don't trouble myself with needing to know why one thread's being moderated and another isn't, because that's the mods' business, and they're welcome to it. We aren't going to see every single thing that happens. Like PG said, sometimes it's an accumulation, or like Starbeam pointed out it could be that only the one thread was reported, and I'm too busy getting squeeful about glitter in Weird and MSL's awesome Molly switcheroo theory to make it my business. A little bit of trust and a little bit of understanding that mods are people too can go a long way, I think.

I mean, honestly, the new rules really come down to common courtesy. That's all it is. There's no need for paranoia. Just implement Wil Wheaton's rule, and it's all good.

[Paynesgrey]

Another factor to remember is that while 3 threads might have the same "heat value", if one of those threads has a post from someone with a history of playing with matches, that someone is going to get more attention.

One of the reasons for the public warnings is we're trying to make sure everyone understands the new standards of decorum.  Say Mickey PM's me because I'm being a big too vulgar, asks me to please not use my peers so familiar... I might ammend my behavior but others will keep doing it until they each get their own PM on the issue.  That's a lot of PM's.  But if Mickey comes over and roasts my ass, Prisc kicks dirt on it, Ashton makes me eat it, then everybody gets that calling someone a

(click to show/hide)

something really, really, narsty, use your imgination

is a big old No Go.  Nobody likes getting their balls busted, much less in public, but we're trying to salvage a forum that was going south of cheese in a number of ways.  I can assure you there is no shortage of gentle PM advice and suggestion, but we don't always have time for it.  

Now, for us Baby Moderaptors, if you feel we make a comment or correction that's over the top or out of line, talk to Iago.  He wants to grade our driving, and needs to know if we need correction, or to be sent to play with Old Yeller.

[Paynesgrey]

Oh, I understand all this quite well.       I don't expect there to be a stick to punish each and every offender.   

I am rather pointing out that there are no more carrots than there were before.   

We all pretty much have to bring our own carrots I'm afraid.  Encourage the good stuff, the grown up, the positive, the supportive when you see it.  You think somebody handles something well, defuses something that was getting a little to vinagery, send 'em a PM saying "Hey, good job with that, right decent of you."  Be courteous and classy when even when someone else isn't.  Your own credibility in debate will increase, and theirs will dwindle, people will be more interested in engaging you on your terms, and less in listening to some passive-aggressive braying.

Considering I was one of the more ill tempered posters back in the TT days, I'm getting a little dizzy and think I'll take a drink.

[Rue-Sal]

Considering I was one of the more ill tempered posters back in the TT days, I'm getting a little dizzy and think I'll take a drink.

Remember kids friends don't let friends mod drunk.

[Paynesgrey]

10 Cane Rum.  It's sipping rum, not shooting rum. 

Besides, I don't get Happy Fun Drunk any more.  I go from "ah, a mite tipsy" straight to "Oh Gawd, pls kill meh... pleeeese..."

Can't drink proper no more, it's a crying shame.  Time wounds all heels I guess.

[Myyrdn Eopia]

Remember kids friends don't let friends mod drunk.

HAH.  Tell that to the game servers I moderate with a group.  One guy gets drunk off his butt more often than not. 


On a more serious note, I realize that many times when I post moderating comments, it can be taken as rude.  That's not my intention—I'm just not as eloquent about it as PG, Priscellie, and the others are about it.  That's partly due to my background, and force of habit—to say it as concisely as possible, with small and easily understandable words.  Messages that can be read in 3-4 seconds, usually.  Blunt, to the point, and yes, able to be taken as rude.  It's a flaw I have, and I'll work on it.  Thanks for pointing it out, guys.

[Shecky]

For this particular instance, it could possibly be that one thread was reported while others were not.  There are so many quick moving threads in the spoilers section, that it's likely very difficult to keep track of what's being said and done where.  Which is why the mods say to report any problems.  They likely won't know about it until it's reported.

And even more to the point, there are a lot of things going on behind the scenes that simply don't get seen. Mods try to take the long view, and that includes trying to keep up on posters' behavior over time and through multiple sets of stimuli. We ain't perfect. Also, when we see someone who damn well should know better, especially after having gotten a number of friendly reminders or introductory warnings, both public and private, we do tend to get a mite tetchy. Downright rude, even. Or when one mod's tried a non-nuclear public statement and gotten flamingly ignored, the others will pile on.

Combine all the above with, for example, a bunch of off-stage arguing against a request to tone things down, and you've gotten someone who needs to have their attention thoroughly gotten. Does that attention-getting venture over the line itself sometimes? Yup. Consider it similar to "Dammit, son, what the HELL is WRONG with you? You KNOW better."

In short, one poster may see what seems to be a bolt from the blue or a merciless piling-on. Just try to keep in mind that more times than you might think, it's simply the tip of the iceberg, the straw that broke the camel's back.

Sometimes, this stuff's enough to drive me to quit drinkin'.

[Paynesgrey]

Fear the Sober Dwarf.

[Niccos Shadow]

And even more to the point, there are a lot of things going on behind the scenes that simply don't get seen. Mods try to take the long view, and that includes trying to keep up on posters' behavior over time and through multiple sets of stimuli. We ain't perfect. Also, when we see someone who damn well should know better, especially after having gotten a number of friendly reminders or introductory warnings, both public and private, we do tend to get a mite tetchy. Downright rude, even. Or when one mod's tried a non-nuclear public statement and gotten flamingly ignored, the others will pile on.

Combine all the above with, for example, a bunch of off-stage arguing against a request to tone things down, and you've gotten someone who needs to have their attention thoroughly gotten. Does that attention-getting venture over the line itself sometimes? Yup. Consider it similar to "Dammit, son, what the HELL is WRONG with you? You KNOW better."

In short, one poster may see what seems to be a bolt from the blue or a merciless piling-on. Just try to keep in mind that more times than you might think, it's simply the tip of the iceberg, the straw that broke the camel's back.

Sometimes, this stuff's enough to drive me to quit drinkin'.

This makes sense too. But "tip of the iceberg" or not, it's still wrong IMO. "One law for the ruled, another for the ruler" isn't going to work if you expect the members not to grumble and eventually disperse.And there is the whole "lead by example" thing. My understanding of the policies/rules is that there isn't any justification for violating the rules.

[Shecky]

This makes sense too. But "tip of the iceberg" or not, it's still wrong IMO. "One law for the ruled, another for the ruler" isn't going to work if you expect the members not to grumble and eventually disperse.And there is the whole "lead by example" thing. My understanding of the policies/rules is that there isn't any justification for violating the rules.

That's as may be. Why, then, do the rules keep getting violated when mods ask pretty please with sugar on top over and over and over again? I don't like coming down harshly on an offender. I've never liked it. It would be easier and probably more efficient just to ban the offender; the extra effort to get through to the person seems like such a waste when most offenders just wind themselves up more over the affront of being called to task for their actions. In short, the rules' enforcers following their own enforced rules to the letter rarely works. It would be simpler all around just to ban the offenders outright instead of trying extreme ways to get through to them.

Wouldn't it? Shouldn't we just follow the rules rigidly and never go above and beyond to try to supply that cosmic cold-water-in-the-face in order to persuade a person to do the right thing?

[the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh]

This makes sense too. But "tip of the iceberg" or not, it's still wrong IMO. "One law for the ruled, another for the ruler" isn't going to work if you expect the members not to grumble and eventually disperse.

It's fine by me, speaking as one of the ruled in this metaphor, for what that may be worth; I do not see that, as a poster and participant who is not a mod, not temperamentally suited to be a mod, and not taking on the responsibilities of being a mod, that I have necessarily earned exactly the same rights as someone who is contributing all the extra work the mods do has.

There's a basic information dynamic here that I don't think is superable.  If you know from their past ten thousand posts that someone is generally a civilised and constructive poster, it gives you information to allow you to know that three hot-tempered posts on one day are most likely just a bad day.  It's not possible to make as informed a judgement when those three posts are the only interaction that person has from the board, so it seems unreasonable to me to expect the standard  to be the same.