Policy Changes: How do you feel?

[the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh]

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.

It seems to me that if a thread is locked in the latter case, with a fairly severe warning as the last post in it, it doesn't leave any immediately obvious way to say "Message received" and/or apologise if one has crossed a line in error.

[Warden John Marcone]

I think a good rule of thumb is to remember that the "Report" button is your friend.  If three threads have equal heat and only one is hosed down, most cases it's because nobody reported the other two.

[Shecky]

It seems to me that if a thread is locked in the latter case, with a fairly severe warning as the last post in it, it doesn't leave any immediately obvious way to say "Message received" and/or apologise if one has crossed a line in error.

PMs suffice. In fact, in the case of a thread that's gotten so toxic that it needs to be shut down, PMs are BETTER than open-forum apologies/acknowledgements; allowing anyone to reply at that point, when emotions are highest, is tantamount to playing with fire. Best to remove the temptation.

[Enjorous]

PMs suffice. In fact, in the case of a thread that's gotten so toxic that it needs to be shut down, PMs are BETTER than open-forum apologies/acknowledgements; allowing anyone to reply at that point, when emotions are highest, is tantamount to playing with fire when everyone is covered in gasoline. Best to remove the temptation.

Fixed in my opinion.

[Niccos Shadow]

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?

There's nothing wrong with the cold-water-in-the-face. I mean, if someone slips up a few times over the course of thousands of posts, there's nothing wrong with a polite slap on the wrist. But if it goes to the point where an admin/mod feels the only way to get through to the offending person is by "stooping to their level", I think a ban (even a temporary one) is in order.

I like the debates, but I don't want to see them dissolve into petty bickering any more than the next person. But, at the same time, I don't want to read constant exasperated "I'm so sick of you people" posts by admins. It boils down to either the offending poster(s) that are annoying said admin(s) need to be banned, or said admin(s) are over reacting. If the former is correct then ban the offending poster(s) and let the forum be happier for it. If it's the latter, then perhaps said admin(s) require some cold-water-in-the-face as well.

In all honesty, there has been a few times in which I actually considered hitting the "report to moderator" button on admin posts to point out these things. But frankly, I thought it might cause more problems than it solved. Not because I doubted the validity of my claim, but because the temperament of the post left me expecting a response of "don't like how things are done, leave".

[Warden John Marcone]

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.

The example I call to refute this is myself.  Ask any of the regular posters from when I joined, I was one of the nastiest SOB's around.  A good chewing out from when I stepped over the line once too often, a good knock over the head for smarting off, and I shaped up (I like to think) into the sort of guy that loves to be around and people like having around.  If I'd been banned outright when I stepped over, it wouldn't have happened, I'd have stayed a beligerant smartass.  I understand that I'm the exception, but (again, I like to think) it's the exception that proves the rule.

[Shecky]

The example I call to refute this is myself.  Ask any of the regular posters from when I joined, I was one of the nastiest SOB's around.  A good chewing out from when I stepped over the line once too often, a good knock over the head for smarting off, and I shaped up (I like to think) into the sort of guy that loves to be around and people like having around.  If I'd been banned outright when I stepped over, it wouldn't have happened, I'd have stayed a beligerant smartass.  I understand that I'm the exception, but (again, I like to think) it's the exception that proves the rule.

(Psst: The bit you were responding to was preceded by "It would be easier...")

There's nothing wrong with the cold-water-in-the-face. I mean, if someone slips up a few times over the course of thousands of posts, there's nothing wrong with a polite slap on the wrist. But if it goes to the point where an admin/mod feels the only way to get through to the offending person is by "stooping to their level", I think a ban (even a temporary one) is in order.

I like the debates, but I don't want to see them dissolve into petty bickering any more than the next person. But, at the same time, I don't want to read constant exasperated "I'm so sick of you people" posts by admins. It boils down to either the offending poster(s) that are annoying said admin(s) need to be banned, or said admin(s) are over reacting. If the former is correct then ban the offending poster(s) and let the forum be happier for it. If it's the latter, then perhaps said admin(s) require some cold-water-in-the-face as well.

In all honesty, there has been a few times in which I actually considered hitting the "report to moderator" button on admin posts to point out these things. But frankly, I thought it might cause more problems than it solved. Not because I doubted the validity of my claim, but because the temperament of the post left me expecting a response of "don't like how things are done, leave".

Prejudice. Literally. You're assuming that a major chewing-out of one person who's stepped WAY over the line is going to equate to your getting pissed on if you pose a reasonable, private question to the mod. Plus, and I repeat, you still don't have anywhere nearly all the information. I've SEEN massive chewings-out. They're a sort of compliment - they mean that the person getting chewed out at least seems to have the POSSIBILITY of straightening up and flying right, becoming a contributing member of the forum. WJM is a perfect example. He was (sorry, WJM, but I think you'll agree) pretty damn dickish. He got a thorough chewing-out and now he's a member in fine standing here - because, as he said, he didn't just negligently get booted but was actually ADDRESSED, actually given more than just "You screwed up" to show him how and how BADLY he had stepped over the line.

This goes hand in hand with how you don't "want to read constant exasperated 'I'm so sick of you people' posts by admins" honestly misses the point. Yeah, the mods could just boot people. Do you really think they'll learn? Especially when they're repeat offenders who have more than once entirely missed the point about HOW they're offensive? If a punishment is to have any effectiveness, it must be strong enough to catch and HOLD the attention of the person receiving it. They have to know in absolutely NO uncertain terms WHAT they did, WHY it's wrong and WHY it's not fit for polite society. And when there's a whole freakin' flood of people doing that, are you honestly surprised that there are "I'm so sick of you people" mod posts?

And finally, aren't you exaggerating a lot with the "constant" description? Happened a handful of times, and anyone who honestly claims that those times were quiet and peaceful and NOT exasperating as hell needs to see a surgeon to fix that rectocranial inversion.

[Niccos Shadow]

You're assuming that a major chewing-out of one person who's stepped WAY over the line is going to equate to your getting pissed on if you pose a reasonable, private question to the mod.

Threats are designed to cause fear, it's unreasonable to make open ban-threats directed at a thread at large and then expect people to accurately interpret who they were meant for. Personally, in those instances, I assume that everyone is included in said threat/warning regardless of having violated rules or not. I'm not a mind reader, it's not up to me to assume or figure out who was being chastised and who wasn't. So I find it only reasonable for me to make that assumption.

Plus, and I repeat, you still don't have anywhere nearly all the information. I've SEEN massive chewings-out. They're a sort of compliment - they mean that the person getting chewed out at least seems to have the POSSIBILITY of straightening up and flying right, becoming a contributing member of the forum. WJM is a perfect example. He was (sorry, WJM, but I think you'll agree) pretty damn dickish. He got a thorough chewing-out and now he's a member in fine standing here - because, as he said, he didn't just negligently get booted but was actually ADDRESSED, actually given more than just "You screwed up" to show him how and how BADLY he had stepped over the line.

This goes hand in hand with how you don't "want to read constant exasperated 'I'm so sick of you people' posts by admins" honestly misses the point. Yeah, the mods could just boot people. Do you really think they'll learn? Especially when they're repeat offenders who have more than once entirely missed the point about HOW they're offensive? If a punishment is to have any effectiveness, it must be strong enough to catch and HOLD the attention of the person receiving it. They have to know in absolutely NO uncertain terms WHAT they did, WHY it's wrong and WHY it's not fit for polite society. And when there's a whole freakin' flood of people doing that, are you honestly surprised that there are "I'm so sick of you people" mod posts?

And finally, aren't you exaggerating a lot with the "constant" description? Happened a handful of times, and anyone who honestly claims that those times were quiet and peaceful and NOT exasperating as hell needs to see a surgeon to fix that rectocranial inversion.

I can't really comment on the example of WJM since I didn't witness the events in question. However, whether or not I have all the information is irrelevant if I'm being subjected to the end result. Keep in mind, I'm not passing a judgment which requires me to have the full information, I'm commenting on things which admins/mods have chosen to expose me to by openly posting it.

Even if member_01 went off calling me every name under the sun resulting in me reporting the post, I still would have no desire to witness a mod/admin beat them down. And if an open post was required by said mod/admin, I would prefer it to be assertive yet still mature and respectful. I don't believe in calling in a bigger bully to beat up the smaller bully; if they're both bullies, they're both wrong.

As to my use of the term "constant", I believe it was fitting in regards to posting proportions. For example: if admin/mod_01 makes 10 administrative posts in a week and 9 of those are offensive, I'd call that constant. And in my opinion, this has been the case in some instances, maybe not throughout the course of a week, but the example is still valid.

[Shecky]

An "open ban-threat" means one of two things: 1) there were multiple offenders and the mod doesn't want to single any one of them out for fear of being accused of favoritism or 2) there were more offenders than not. And if you can't figure out whether your posts were or weren't in line with the rules, chances are they weren't - you don't have to be a mind-reader, just a reader. And yes, it IS up to you to analyze your OWN actions. This is not a hand-holding pre-school; it's alleged to be a congress of adults who are self-aware and, hopefully, able to be self-critical. The rules have been laid out pretty clearly, and it's, frankly, kind of small to refuse to self-examine. A participant in any group has just as much obligation to be a contributing part of the group as the group has to the participant.

*shrug* It's been explained by multiple mods to great extent; if you still choose to believe it to be bullying or offensive in light of those explanations, that's certainly your right. I'd still like to see specific examples instead of broad brushstrokes.

[Niccos Shadow]

And if you can't figure out whether your posts were or weren't in line with the rules, chances are they weren't - you don't have to be a mind-reader, just a reader. And yes, it IS up to you to analyze your OWN actions.

I acknowledge the fact that it's possible for someone to read a problem with one of my posts even if I can't imagine what the problem was. I can proof read a post 1,000 times but since we're communicating solely through text, it's not going to guarantee that someone wont find an issue with it. If i do something wrong, I personally have no problem accepting the consequences, but it's only right that I be told what I did wrong. Honestly, I don't know if I've annoyed any mode/admins or not. I've never been contacted directly about anything, but a few debates i was involved in have been generally stepped on. So do I assume I was right and continue on as I was, or do I try to completely change the way I normally explain myself to be on the safe side?

[Shecky]

I acknowledge the fact that it's possible for someone to read a problem with one of my posts even if I can't imagine what the problem was. I can proof read a post 1,000 times but since we're communicating solely through text, it's not going to guarantee that someone wont find an issue with it. If i do something wrong, I personally have no problem accepting the consequences, but it's only right that I be told what I did wrong. Honestly, I don't know if I've annoyed any mode/admins or not. I've never been contacted directly about anything, but a few debates i was involved in have been generally stepped on. So do I assume I was right and continue on as I was, or do I try to completely change the way I normally explain myself to be on the safe side?

Don't assume. Never assume. If you can't be certain you're capable of looking at a post objectively, don't make the post. If your grandmother wouldn't call your post rude without knowing it was you, you're probably fine. If she would, then start thinkin'.

[Paynesgrey]

If you haven't gotten a PM or had a mod quote your post in Public Smackdown Reply, then you're probably ok, just a bystander who got some splash.  Although if your tone of voice was rising along with everyone else's in the thread that got Mod Swarmed, then it'll be a good idea to gentle it down some.  

If you have to ask yourself, "Do I need to relax this thing?", then the answer is probably "Yep."  

[Katty]

Prejudice. Literally. You're assuming that a major chewing-out of one person who's stepped WAY over the line is going to equate to your getting pissed on if you pose a reasonable, private question to the mod.

Shecky, this is the crux of the problem, and one that I think the mods are having a hard time understanding.  Yes, we think that.  I can certainly say I think that.  Because the "on-air" modding in the threads tends more towards the heavy handed.  (Obvious disclaimer, this is only what I've seen, and I'm sure it's not every moderated thread on here.)  It tends towards the snarky.  It tends towards the yelling.  Is there something wrong with that?  Not necessarily, no.  Some people aren't going to get it unless you apply the clue by four upside the head.  And then get a tank to make sure they got it.

However.  That doesn't create a great atmosphere for people to feel like they can PM a mod.  I think it's very possible to be as firm as you need to, and still be polite.  I'm on another board that does this.  If we're not allowed to do something, I don't think the mods should be able to do it in a reply.  Even in an administrative reply.  THAT is what will build a great relationship between all of us.  You don't have to be sweetness and light all the time, but you have to be fair, and you have to be polite. 

I do think that's possible.  I certainly hope it is.  But getting to that point takes time, and requires patience.  On both sides.

[Niccos Shadow]

I'd still like to see specific examples instead of broad brushstrokes.

I'm not trying to start a public lynching. But since you're a mod and it's my hope that this conversation has some positive result, I PM'd you a few examples.

[Amber]

Shecky, this is the crux of the problem, and one that I think the mods are having a hard time understanding.  Yes, we think that.  I can certainly say I think that.  Because the "on-air" modding in the threads tends more towards the heavy handed.  (Obvious disclaimer, this is only what I've seen, and I'm sure it's not every moderated thread on here.)  It tends towards the snarky.  It tends towards the yelling.  Is there something wrong with that?  Not necessarily, no.  Some people aren't going to get it unless you apply the clue by four upside the head.  And then get a tank to make sure they got it.

I have personally sent a few notifications, and I always find the mods to be fair and reasonable off-board, even when it seems like they're being heavy-handed and mean on-board.  FWIW.