Help understand the scope of what you all mean by the following. I may have left somethings out. Feel free to add them.
I hope this is open to discussion by more people than just Mise. I'm going to go through each of these and rate them low-to-high (0-10) on how important I feel being able to PD these actions are. I will then give a brief explanation of how I came to that number. I only speak for myself.
PD of PDMA: which of the following are most important for members to have an opportunity for PD of moderator actions:
0.
There is no real reason to discuss this as there are really no consequences for a warning. It's a minor enough 'punishment' that it should only be handled via PM, if at all. I have also never seen warnings abused by mods.
Everyday infractions that result in 3 or less points?
1.
It's a small punishment and the vast majority of these are routine for bad behavior. I don't really see a reason to let people talk about these because there is an appeals process.
1.
Same reasons as above.
Side question: Do the mods think that the normal points system works?
3. 5.
This one is a bit more severe and it affects other users besides the person who's banned because they can't contribute to the forums/threads while they're banned. I still think it's probably more appropriate for other users or the banned member to PM mods to talk to them about banned members than to talk about it in public. However, oftentimes people don't know other members have been banned and I have literally seen where people just asked what happened to so-and-so and were warned (if not infracted) for PDMA just for asking in-thread. In light of that, I changed my answer to a 5. I think people should be allowed to ask
if someone is banned, though I'm iffy on whether or not they should be allowed to talk about
why it happened.
6.
Same as before, but a bit more important because of the severity.
9.
Users have a right to know why it was done without everyone having to PM mods to ask and then PM each other to spread the news. The mods don't even have to get into specifics other than to just say "X,Y and Z rules were broken." or whatever - you don't have to say that specific users caused it to happen. Though if it is just one or two users that cause a thread to be closed (and I've seen that happen too) you really need to think about punishing those users and not everyone. I think users being able to discuss that might help you see when a thread really has problems due to a few people instead of problems of being a terrible thread in general. Sometimes it's not easy to tell the difference because just a handful can totally jack a worthwhile discussion and quickly run it into the ground, at which point you close it and everyone but the jackasses lose.
10.
There's no reason to not allow us to talk about this other than the general rule on PDMA. No one is hurt and some feel very strongly about a thread being moved and should be allowed to speak out on it and have other users back them up or refute them. That doesn't mean they have a right to overrule the mod decision on the matter, but they should at least be heard.
Adding mod tags to posts?
0.
I don't see a reason why we should be able to talk about this for similar reasons to moderator warnings.
3.
This one is highly situational. Sometimes a post needs to be nuked and that's that, but occasionally posts are caught in the crossfire and a quick, 'What the heck?' could sort it out. Then again, this would likely be abused like a mofo if allowed. Then again then again, let them abuse it and get infractions and points for it. Then again then again then again that's probably more work for y'all.
Limiting a poster's forum access?
6. Same reasons as for bans.
Adding a member to the Permanent Point program?
9
Here's where I'm going to differ with Mise. He said he would go as far as not ever permabanning someone (I know I'm changing subject, just follow along). I don't agree with that because some extreme flamer trolls and just seriously bad people do need to be banned. I think he'd agree that someone who logs on with multiple DL's to circumvent a ban he got for unloading a string of expletives on someone just so he can continue harassing them deserves a permaban. Or maybe not. Anywhoo, when it comes to permabans and placing members on the permanent point system, I think other users do have a say in it and that they should be allowed to discuss it in public.
Obviously, Mise sees this issue from the angle that people should be allowed to defend users who are up for permabans or permanent points. I agree with that, but I also feel strongly that other users who are affected by the PB/PP candidates should have a say as well. If you are the victim of harassment, then you should have a say in the matter. And if you are going to allow people to publicly defend PB/PP candidates, it's only fair to let the other side have a say as well.
This has the same issues of potential abuse, naturally.
Permabanning current members for one time severe posting violations (porn, piracy, hate link)?
0 or 8
This depends on how open you are about what constitutes 'severe' violations and make those severe things known. For example, I actually do know of a case where a user did actually link to porn and although banned, was not permabanned for it. Now, maybe he didn't post actual porn, just suggestive pictures and a link. But that goes to you all having to be pretty explicit about what qualifies
exactly as severe violations. If you all lay out clear guidelines, then I don't think it needs to be discussed. Period. But if you aren't clear, or if you are clear but are wishy-washy on enforcement or allow wiggle room or do anything other than strictly follow the detailed guidelines you came up with and
made public, then we should be allowed to discuss for the same reasons that apply for other permabans.
PB brand new members for severe posting violations?
0 or 5
Same as above, though much less important because if a brand new member does that sort of thing, I don't particularly care if they are gone forever. They only came to cause everyone trouble to begin with if that's how they start out here.
PB current members for persistent, ongoing rules violations and accumulated infractions and bans?
10.
Same reasons as for adding someone to the permanent points program, though more important because of the increased penalty.
On Transparency: What does that mean?
Know which moderator did which action
4.
This is usually documented whenever a mod takes an action, though in cases where threads are deleted and other specific circumstances, it isn't. But I don't think it's a huge issue because we do know which mod took action in most cases.
Know why the moderator took the action
8.
When a mod takes and action and doesn't publicly say why, it's pretty stupid and can be infuriating in some cases. A simple, short message would suffice in most instances. I do think just saying 'Don't be a jerk' suffices in 75% of cases, though I have seen many instances where I feel that that message doesn't suffice. Cases where one poster is attacking another, and another returns the favor and gets punished but not the first, things like that deserve a bit more explanation than 'don't be a jerk' because both were likely violating it.
Know if any other moderators participated in the decision to act
0.
I don't really care much about this too much. I'm sure others will make good cases for it.
Know which other moderators took place in the decision to act
0.
Same as above.
See the discussion those moderators had
6.
I think that a person who is appealing a decision should be allowed to see that discussion, the appeals process is very one-sided in that you can make a case but you have no ability to respond to whatever the mods are talking about. It's frustrating.
As for making those discussion public for everyone to see, well then that's really dependent of whether or not PDMA is relaxed and how other rules are changed. If there isn't any changes to current policy, there isn't much point I think.
See any pms between the acting mod and the target of the action
0.
As with the last point, it depends on how other rules are changed. However, if rules are changed and this is allowed, it should be up to the target of action to display this in public, it shouldn't be standard practice that everyone have these PM's divulged without consent. I don't really care either way to be honest.
Be able to directly question the mod who acted
3.
We kind of already can, though the mods are free to not respond and quite often don't. To be fair, I'm sure most of the questioning is total BS and whining. However, I know from personal experience that when you really are trying to have a serious discussion with a mod about an infraction and they won't respond, it's infuriating.
Though you do have the ability to appeal decisions, which mitigates that frustration somewhat.
Have that mod be required to respond
5.
I hesitate to ask for a blanket rule that forces mods to respond to complete BS complaints. However, I do feel it's important that you all do respond when it's appropriate.
Power and effect of vox populi on mods and bad boys:
0.
I don't want to see groups jockeying to place their friends on the mods/staff list. I understand that the current selection process is imperfect and has produced bad apples, but I appreciate you all are cognizant of this fact and do try your best to pick well. That far outweighs the concerns I have and like I said, I don't want to see popularity become a factor in mod selection and we all know that's exactly what will happen. In my opinion, the negatives of that outcome outweigh any positive aspects.
Have input on staff selection
10.
If you all are looking at hiring staff, I don't see a problem with soliciting feedback on what kinds of things posters want to see in a potential mod or staffer. This does not cover explicitly/implicitly lobbying for specific posters; that should be disallowed.
Have an actual say on staff selection
0.
It'd be nice, but let's be honest, this one is not going to happen if you all feel very strongly about someone. I can't blame you either, I wouldn't want to be forced to promote someone that myself and my coworkers can't stand.
8.
I don't see why we can't do this in private already. If we could do it in public also depends on changes to PDMA et al.
I can't vote on this one, it's too tricky for me to judge. It's got to be extremely disheartening to be a mod trying his/her best but to be unliked for whatever reason and then be targeted by members for removal. On the other hand, I do think we should have a say when a mod is just terribad, or when a mod is absent in their duties. But that could so easily be abused....hard to say really.
Have input on staff removal
Same as above.
Have an actual say on staff removal
Same as above.
Be able to permaban members
0.
You all need to be the executioners, don't hand that over to us. I think we have the right to be the prosecutors and defense at the trial, but the decision shouldn't be ours.
I believe I covered this already.
Have an actual say on PBs
Define 'actual say'. Should we be able to talk about it? I think so. Should we be able to make the decision? Nope.
Be able to vote PB members back to good standing
This shouldn't be allowed. I don't see a need for it. If we are allowed to discuss a PB and they are judged to be worthy of a PB and they receive it, there is no reason I see why they should be allowed back. If we can't discuss a PB to begin with (and PDMA rules aren't relaxed), then this is going to be PDMA and thus not allowed. If PDMA rules are relaxed but we can't discuss whether someone should be PB'd in the first place, I don't think we should be able to advocate the reversal of a PB. That's not fair to the victims of that poster, for lack of a better phrase.
]quote]The PB process is long and tortuous here if you are a member who has been here for a while. The staff has very diverse views on it. You have to really work at it to get PB. Lifting PB has been a topic of staff discussion usually it comes up when talking about DLs.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, it is a tortuous process and it should be. I would like to advocate however for a more proactive use of the permanent points program as an alternative to both normal infractions and straight-up PB's. I made the case before that a normal infraction is just a slap on the wrist to someone who's out to cause trouble. When I made that case, it was interpreted by a mod as me basically bragging about being able to cause trouble - but honest to god it wasn't. I had a point - if someone is a dedicated troll, an infraction means literally nothing. You aren't going to correct behavior with it. A temp ban is a bit more severe, but we've had enough posters come back off a ban and go back to their old habits to know it doesn't work either.
But if you put someone on the PP program, then their actions have serious consequences and can lead to a PB. That's a pretty credible deterrent IMO - but you all have to use it and you hardly ever do. It's not even credible in a theoretical sense because with a few exceptions, there are a lot of people who know the PP program exists but don't care because they continue to do their troll thing day in/day out and never get on the program.
.
