Reform of CFC Public Discussion of Moderator Action Rules

[sophie]

Maybe they just want to keep the administration down. Is an infraction or the moderation here really that important? Why just not accept that you may have overstepped some line and be done with it?

..or this is about the fight for freedom, democracy and striking against tyranny.. I forgot, sorry..

Because sometimes people get banned for what really should be minor infractions.

 

[pigswill]

Why is visibility to non-members an issue?

My impression is that Lefty is concerned that PDMA would be overwhelmed by flaming, trolling and general derailment as he implies this is what happened the two times its been tried in CFC. It would surely add to moderators' workload if this is the case.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Why is visibility to non-members an issue?

If you are referring to my post above, I was pointing out that non-members can't see the post(s) the link refers to.

Since the poster intended that the link be followed and viewed, this is an issue.

 

[Keinpferd]

The example you linked to is not viewable to non-members.

Too bad, in this example, the moderator is not being an ass and takes a humane standpoint, just going a bit too far, while the "offender" is less considerate and more on the provocative side but simply doesn't do anything against the rules.

This is how the moderator walks out, I think with a rather dignified hat tapping, examplary:



And this is the end of the appeal procedure with the final rule and a plain "thank you" by the "winning" forum member, who feels better now, without triumph howling:

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Thank you.

Yes, it does appear that a resolution was found and made public in a civil manner (keeping in mind that I have no idea what it was about in the first place; this is just a comment on the way it was presented in these posts).

 

[Lone Wolf]

The "provocative" nature of the post in question (about some immigration policy supposedly tailored to bring the most backwards elements into the country) would be a complete non-issue for CFC. It seems that TWC moderators are being more discriminating when it comes to the content, even though in this case, the infraction was overturned.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

Because sometimes people get banned for what really should be minor infractions.

I doubt this.

 

[JohannaK]

Lucky you.

 

[sophie]

I doubt this.

Because you aren't a NESer or IOTer. And you don't hang around the IRC channels. PDMA rules suppress the passage of information, making it easier for moderators to keep posters in the dark about how horrible some of them really are.

 

[Lefty Scaevola]

The preponderance of bans (of real members, rather than spam bots/advertisers) occur automatically as a result of accumulated points. Thus often it will be a 1 point infraction that sends a repeat infractee over a limit and bans him. Still that is not 1 minor infraction, it is an accumulation of multiple infractions.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

So this happening automatically might exclude it from being a moderator action? It could be nice to know when some of the more consistent posters are permabanned.. Did cheezy leave, die or did he get banned, for example? Hard to know..

 

[Lefty Scaevola]

The infraction with its points is a moderator action, as well as the resulting ban. When a moderator tries to enter an infraction the points from which will result in a ban, he gets an irritating form saying "This infraction will result in a ban, please enter the reason for the ban" rather than the software just automatically entering "Accumulated Points" which is what the moderator will then usually type in the form to continue. But yah, you have some posters with dozens of infraction and formal warnings logged. I expect the record holders have well over a 100 of them.

 

[sophie]

The infraction with its points is a moderator action, as well as the resulting ban. When a moderator tries to enter an infraction the points from which will result in a ban, he gets an irritating form saying "This infraction will result in a ban, please enter the reason for the ban" rather than the software just automatically entering "Accumulated Points" which is what the moderator will then usually type in the form to continue. But yah, you have some posters with dozens of infraction and formal warnings logged. I expect the record holders have well over a 100 of them.

To act as though a ban or not ban is entirely out of a moderator's control is absolutely ludicrous.

 

[Bootstoots]

I'll say a bit about how bans work.

When a user accumulates 8 active points, they are automatically banned for one week. Normally, 1-point infractions expire after 10 days, 2-pointers expire in 25 days, and 3-pointers expire in 30 days. In order to accumulate 8 points, a user must normally receive 3-4 infractions in the space of less than a month.

Users are also sometimes banned for short periods of time (1-7 days) on the spot for repeated or especially serious rule violations. In some of those cases it could be argued that the offense resulting in the ban should have been just an infraction instead, which is what I think Owen is saying. This is debatable case-by-case, but the moderators do have the authority to issue bans if they determine it to be necessary.

Bans of more than 1 week are quite rare but are occasionally issued for flagrant offenses, especially if the user has a long pattern of such behavior. Additionally, users who accumulate a very large number of infractions over a long period of time may be placed on the permanent points program, in which new points never expire. Accumulating 21 permanent points results in a permanent ban, which happens on average about 2-3 times per year. To give some idea of how difficult it is to get permabanned here, the 4 users* who were permabanned in the last 2 years had a combined total of 465 infractions and warnings.

*Established users only: ignores advertisers, DLs, and accounts used entirely for trolling or other abusive behavior.

 

[JollyRoger]

I doubt this.

It is possible to get over 100 minor infractions.

 

[Lefty Scaevola]

To act as though a ban or not ban is entirely out of a moderator's control is absolutely ludicrous.

Duh, NO ONE said they were, what you quoted to support your misstatement clearly shows the opposite, that the moderator must enter form information to complete the automatic ban on points. He gets a manual interrupt at that point, the ban only occurs if he completes the process at that point.
It would save time for it to be more automated at that point, since the decision on the points for the infraction has already be made before then, usually without any fore knowledge of the posters current accumulation of points.

 

[Birdjaguar]

The reasons of the rise and fall of Myspace, Facebook, why one surpasses the other and becomes the monopolist, are to a great extend buried in the partly irrational laws of motion of social media. CFC shouldn't pat its own back too much for being so much bigger than Apolyton or WePlayCiv, the latter of which just picked a stupid name. I don't eat in a restaurant with a stupid name.

Let me give an example, how PDMA successfully works in another forum, Total War Center, of about the same size as CFC, going by page views considerably bigger. I picked an example, in which a forum member publicly contests a moderator action, with the outcome, that the appeal is granted. In this example, both the unjustly infracted forum member and the "loosing" moderator can walk out with their heads held high. I think, the atmosphere of the entire place is lifted by such moments of "justice", and I'm not worried, that the moderator will stand down because of this single lost match.

That was a great link. I also agree with their decision.

The possibility of having to publicly defend ones actions has not been a part of CFC culture since I've been here. It would be a huge change with some benefits. Moderators might be more thoughtful about their actions and those who appealed might rant less and think more if they have to go public with their complaint. The downside might be misbehavior in the thread. Any success would hinge upon the willingness of all concerned to be respectful and be graceful losers.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

NO ONE said they were, what you quoted to support your misstatement clearly shows the opposite, that the moderator must enter form information to complete the automatic ban on points. He gets a manual interrupt at that point, the ban only occurs if he completes the process at that point.

The thing is, though, that you have no choice but to increase the poster's accumulated points by at least that 1 point that pushes the total into an automatic ban - as long as you decide to infract instead of warn.

It's an unpleasant fact that some posters may receive infractions that are deserved, but the one that tips them over into a ban may be some minor thing that only warrants 1 point (or maybe just a warning, but of course moderators differ in what they consider merits a warning or an infraction). Of course the moderator does have the discretion to opt for warning the poster instead of infracting, depending on the circumstances, and save the actual points for a more serious offense. That would probably help cut down on the complaints that "so-and-so was banned for this really trivial thing."

 

[JollyRoger]

Sometimes I suspect it is part of the intended humiliation - banning a poor poster for a silly post while leaving his best artwork uninfracted.

 

[gay_Aleks]

Then strive towards making only artwork.