OT Changes Q&A

[Birdjaguar]

I brought up a valid criticism of your scheme.

Isn't that the point of this thread?

You did and I responded as honestly as I could. It is not going to be a perfect system, but your (collective) posts have not been perfect either.

 

[useless]

Why does it matter if my posts have not been perfect? Stop trying to make this personal, please.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

I think he tries to say nobodys perfect. Not to insult.

 

[GhostWriter16]

All of this is true. Welcome to real life on the internet. All the mods are different and will continue to be. It is an imperfect world. I can be pretty lenient, others like Turner are often less so. You know that. You know who is likely to infract you. Post accordingly. We discuss controversial posts to reduce biases, but keep in mind, that for each of those on this list, there is a very long history of problem posts and you have already been told to change. Your sympathy accounts are empty.

This is why you need a clear system of rules, not to allow people to "Loophole" but to avoid situations like "Well, if Birdjag is the mod online at the time, then the post will have nothing done about it, but if Turner is online for another person who makes the exact same post, the person will get infracted" (Please note that I'm not trying to cast either you or Turner in a more positive or negative light or whatever. I'm just using them as an analogy earlier.)

I feel like a few of the mods are very "Edgy" and will infract almost everything that even comes close to the line, others very leinient and will allow things that go pretty far past the "Line" to go free. I think first, however, you need to define where the line is. A good example of where this is done is profanity (Which I don't use anyway, but I can still recognize the fairness in which it is handled) certain words are "Censored" and those words are infractable, if you go back and remove the word you won't be infracted, and cursing AT someone is never tolerated. Whether you could argue the rules should be more or less leinient, there is a clear line.

I get that its harder to do that with trolling and spam, but really it is worth the extra effort. I do feel that letting certain threads become "Red Diamond" and be moderated strictly, while allowing other threads to have a bit of spam as long as outright trolling or flaming doesn't occur was a VERY good choice for this forum, as it clearly differeates between the level of moderation between say, a thread about your favorite food and a thread about, say, the abortion debate.

In fact, I could see a category between the very strict "Red Diamond" and the layman's spam thread. Threads which should be taken seriously but the occasional witty comment that is semi-on topic or gradual, natural topic drift is allowed. Not a necessity, but something to think about. Then we'd have three flavors of threads: "Spam threads" (Where basically if you don't insult someone or break the profanity rule and you're good, "Standard" threads (Where tangents are allowed somewhat, but the discussion is taken seriously and serious spam will be infracted) and "Red Diamond" threads where there's a very specific debate at hand.

Even if you don't take that suggestion though, if you want my opinion, straighten out that rules. And note, I'm not saying don't allow moderator judgment. Sometimes its needed. But while making clear that its allowed, try to use it as little as possible. Try to write a rulebook that can actually be followed without needing to use trial and error as I did.

That's... impressive?

IIRC someone claimed that "Nobody changes their behavior over a warning on the forum."

Well, actually, I'm sure a lot of us do. I know I do.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

I would rename "Spam" threads to "Light" threads as "Spam" never sounds good unless it comes in a can.

 

[Zelig]

IIRC someone claimed that "Nobody changes their behavior over a warning on the forum."

Well, actually, I'm sure a lot of us do. I know I do.

I don't even know what the rules are here, it's just a coincidence that they don't interfere with my posting.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

I don't even know what the rules are here, it's just a coincidence that they don't interfere with my posting.

Then I would suggest to get acquainted as to not inference on a later occasion.

 

[Zelig]

Then I would suggest to get acquainted as to not inference on a later occasion.

Not worth my time. If I get banned for my regular posting style, the quality of moderation is going to be too low to justify my contribution to a forum.

 

[woody60707]

This.

I hate to be blunt Dommy, but you're assuming that people follow the rules, without fail, without interjecting their own dislikes.

I have no clue what you could possible want them to do. And to be honest, I haven't seen this as a big problem. Sure, sometimes people may not get carded for something they should of been carded for, but I can't think of one time I ever seen anyone get red carded when they didn't break the rules.

The mods here seems to bend over backwards before they premban someone, and that's a lot more work then most others mods on other forums would be willing to put in for 12 people.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

The old Road was a very long process that involved escalated ban lengths over time that only ended in a PB after all the shorter bans had been used. Not everyone on that list had been on it from the beginning anyway.

The staff forums are more inefficient than the US Senate.

Sometimes I find that difficult to believe.

Think of the most muddled, rambling kinds of public inquiries or committee reports done in Parliament (ie. the Sponsorship Scandal, Mulroney's ties to Karl-Heinz Shreiber)... and believe that Birdjaguar is probably not exaggerating, or not by much. I make no claims to know how the U.S. Senate works, but I am familiar with how the Canadian bureaucracy works. I participated in the discussions about the Road during my time on staff, and it's nice to see that a decision has finally been made that does not appear to be too cumbersome.

Let us now hope the staff has the wisdom to make it absolutely fair and objective.

 

[nonconformist]

Said pms have been sent, or are outgoing in the next 24 hours?

 

[Maniacal]

Think of the most muddled, rambling kinds of public inquiries or committee reports done in Parliament (ie. the Sponsorship Scandal, Mulroney's ties to Karl-Heinz Shreiber)... and believe that Birdjaguar is probably not exaggerating, or not by much. I make no claims to know how the U.S. Senate works, but I am familiar with how the Canadian bureaucracy works. I participated in the discussions about the Road during my time on staff, and it's nice to see that a decision has finally been made that does not appear to be too cumbersome.

Let us now hope the staff has the wisdom to make it absolutely fair and objective.

I was also referring to adding things like the youtube tag button into the post editor as well, or other forum improvements.

 

[El_Machinae]

I don't even know what the rules are here, it's just a coincidence that they don't interfere with my posting.

This can be very true. We literally have dozens of posters with thousands of posts, who almost never get infractions. There is a strong community of people who just can easily interact with the community without causing any trouble.

There's also a cohort of posters who slip up occasionally. Sometimes they're upset enough to 'break the rules'. Sometimes they just make a mistake. But, we've learned that their infractions are rare, and that the poster only needs to be reminded rarely.

 

[Godwynn]

This can be very true. We literally have dozens of posters with thousands of posts, who almost never get infractions.

/curtsies

You make an old maid blush!

 

[GenMarshall]

IIRC someone claimed that "Nobody changes their behavior over a warning on the forum."

Well, actually, I'm sure a lot of us do. I know I do.

Clearly you're not the only one. I know I have constanly whined about infraction for years until one day just said that I'm just going on the way of the good poster and watch my post (and control my own temper in heated debates) to not get them in the first place. I know it sounds like fridge brilliance here and now, but at the time I was young and stupid .

 

[JerichoHill]

This is why you need a clear system of rules, not to allow people to "Loophole" but to avoid situations like "Well, if Birdjag is the mod online at the time, then the post will have nothing done about it, but if Turner is online for another person who makes the exact same post, the person will get infracted" (Please note that I'm not trying to cast either you or Turner in a more positive or negative light or whatever. I'm just using them as an analogy earlier.)

I feel like a few of the mods are very "Edgy" and will infract almost everything that even comes close to the line, others very leinient and will allow things that go pretty far past the "Line" to go free. I think first, however, you need to define where the line is. A good example of where this is done is profanity (Which I don't use anyway, but I can still recognize the fairness in which it is handled) certain words are "Censored" and those words are infractable, if you go back and remove the word you won't be infracted, and cursing AT someone is never tolerated. Whether you could argue the rules should be more or less leinient, there is a clear line.

I get that its harder to do that with trolling and spam, but really it is worth the extra effort. I do feel that letting certain threads become "Red Diamond" and be moderated strictly, while allowing other threads to have a bit of spam as long as outright trolling or flaming doesn't occur was a VERY good choice for this forum, as it clearly differeates between the level of moderation between say, a thread about your favorite food and a thread about, say, the abortion debate.

In fact, I could see a category between the very strict "Red Diamond" and the layman's spam thread. Threads which should be taken seriously but the occasional witty comment that is semi-on topic or gradual, natural topic drift is allowed. Not a necessity, but something to think about. Then we'd have three flavors of threads: "Spam threads" (Where basically if you don't insult someone or break the profanity rule and you're good, "Standard" threads (Where tangents are allowed somewhat, but the discussion is taken seriously and serious spam will be infracted) and "Red Diamond" threads where there's a very specific debate at hand.

Even if you don't take that suggestion though, if you want my opinion, straighten out that rules. And note, I'm not saying don't allow moderator judgment. Sometimes its needed. But while making clear that its allowed, try to use it as little as possible. Try to write a rulebook that can actually be followed without needing to use trial and error as I did.

This 100 Times. I'm shocked that there isn't such a guideline / rulebook on what is and what is not point worthy, available to posters to see, and transparent.

 

[Atticus]

Unfortunately, it's nearly impossible to even try to define what is allowed and what not in trolling or spamming for example. On the other hand that would increase the bureaucracy of moderating and make it more rigid.

The way I see it, it's better just not to go too near the line. Not too often at least.

Think it this way: the infraction itself isn't a punishment, the ban is. If you get an infraction every now and then, it isn't that bad, it happens. If you get a ban, you know you should rethink your posting.

PS. A little bird sung that the PMs have been sent.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

The way I try to do it avoid trolling/flaming, is I read the post, and I try to imagine a poster I don't like saying that to me, "Would I be insulted?" And if it does I fix it.

I hope someone else finds this is a useful suggesion.

 

[JerichoHill]

Agreed that there is difficulty in defining trolling etc. What I did on the financial forum that I moderate is to list examples of what the mods deem to be spam (actual spam). It is very explicit that any spam = autoban. Those might help.

 

[Zelig]

This 100 Times. I'm shocked that there isn't such a guideline / rulebook on what is and what is not point worthy, available to posters to see, and transparent.

Yes, I suppose as an economist, you would like to see a guideline / rulebook on something that cannot and should not be quantified in such a way.

Moderator Action: No need to poke fun at other posters.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889