Why moderation is so simplistic?

[Specialist290]

I'd rather have that type of moderator than have moderators plotting against users. Two forums I've participated had that and...It's really bad.

Just to clarify, do you think you can specify what exactly you mean when you say you're afraid of "moderators plotting against users"? What sort of specific activities does this entail, in your experience?

[Crimson Sunrise]

Just to clarify, do you think you can specify what exactly you mean when you say you're afraid of "moderators plotting against users"? What sort of specific activities does this entail, in your experience?

Well, let me share something that happened some 10 years ago when I was part of an anime forum.

As opposed to here, this forum was pretty local and, since most of the users lived on the same town, they often hanged out together in set meetings and such. I was then told by other member of the forum that the 'high tier' staff (i.e admnistrators mainly with some moderators present) made other reunions themselves to discuss just how to 'get rid' of user they didn't liked for one reason or another in such a way that it wouldn't look like they made it just to pick on the person in question. Other moderators that either didn't seemed trusty enough or had 'friendships' with said users were shunned aside and not informed of those reunions. Eventually, since the user that told me that stuff wasn't that reliable, rumors about it, started to spread. The repercussion was so big and heavy that the admnistrators decided to close the forum. Based on what I said so far, you could say that this are mainly rumors that spreaded FUD and ended up making prejudice of innocent people...Until last year, my friend (which was also a member of the same forum) talked with one of the moderators that participated in those secret reuinons and the moderator pretty much confirmed all the rumours that were spread at that time.

Hopefully this will give you an idea on what I mean when I talk about 'moderators plotting against users'.

[andrew123]

Well, let me share something that happened some 10 years ago when I was part of an anime forum.

As opposed to here, this forum was pretty local and, since most of the users lived on the same town, they often hanged out together in set meetings and such. I was then told by other member of the forum that the 'high tier' staff (i.e admnistrators mainly with some moderators present) made other reunions themselves to discuss just how to 'get rid' of user they didn't liked for one reason or another in such a way that it wouldn't look like they made it just to pick on the person in question. Other moderators that either didn't seemed trusty enough or had 'friendships' with said users were shunned aside and not informed of those reunions. Eventually, since the user that told me that stuff wasn't that reliable, rumors about it, started to spread. The repercussion was so big and heavy that the admnistrators decided to close the forum. Based on what I said so far, you could say that this are mainly rumors that spreaded FUD and ended up making prejudice of innocent people...Until last year, my friend (which was also a member of the same forum) talked with one of the moderators that participated in those secret reuinons and the moderator pretty much confirmed all the rumours that were spread at that time.

Hopefully this will give you an idea on what I mean when I talk about 'moderators plotting against users'.

Unless the moderators coordinate over skype (maybe they do for logistical reasons) that's not as likely on larger forums.

When your fellow moderator lives in Cape Town, it's not that easy to plot a massive conspiracy.

Plus, anime forum? I stopped frequenting AMV forums for one reason...

Crack ships:

Need I say more.

Disclaimer: I may have helped with some AMV's. (I promise it wasn't anything like Amorra... 'shudders')

Edited December 18, 2014 by andrew123

[Crimson Sunrise]

Unless the moderators coordinate over skype (maybe they do for logistical reasons) that's not as likely on larger forums.

When your fellow moderator lives in Cape Town, it's not that easy to plot a massive conspiracy.

Plus, anime forum? I stopped frequenting AMV forums for one reason...

Crack ships:

Need I say more.

Maybe I may have made the ocurence a little earlier than it was. The events I posted happened when I was less than 20, so....probably it was 20 years ago or more. No YouTube back then, son.

[andrew123]

Maybe I may have made the ocurence a little earlier than it was. The events I posted happened when I was less than 20, so....probably it was 20 years ago or more. No YouTube back then, son.

Hey, my friends were still using 56k dial up.

Of course there wasn't anything like modern video sharing. AMV's, however, were made and distributed through alternate means.

In modern times, it's all about the streams.

[vexx32]

We coordinate over IRC, just so that we can avoid making dumb decisions in the heat of the moment, really.

Skype is a backup in case IRC is down -- we almost never use it.

That said, we've never had anything like that happen. And I sincerely hope we never do. It only ever leads to one hell of a mess, no matter what intention there is. We do, obviously, discuss whether there is sufficient reason to ban someone from the forums, because we don't make that kind of decision lightly. Heck, a lot of the time we prefer to deliberate whether or not just to close a thread, because none of us want to do something that isn't justified...

But not once have I ever seen any kind of intentional removal of users from the forum who had not broken rules many, many times over.

We keep everyone to the rules, ourselves included, and that's all.

[lajoswinkler]

I feel there are not enough moderators to cover the entire forum with prompt actions when trolls start trolling, so the optimal approach is to shut down the discussion. I don't think that's a good policy because that makes trolls win. They want to destroy the thread and they succeed. Such policy is identical to the stupid policies in real world.

The solution is to increase the number of moderators.

[andrew123]

We coordinate over IRC, just so that we can avoid making dumb decisions in the heat of the moment, really.

Skype is a backup in case IRC is down -- we almost never use it.

That said, we've never had anything like that happen. And I sincerely hope we never do. It only ever leads to one hell of a mess, no matter what intention there is. We do, obviously, discuss whether there is sufficient reason to ban someone from the forums, because we don't make that kind of decision lightly. Heck, a lot of the time we prefer to deliberate whether or not just to close a thread, because none of us want to do something that isn't justified...

But not once have I ever seen any kind of intentional removal of users from the forum who had not broken rules many, many times over.

We keep everyone to the rules, ourselves included, and that's all.

I definitely saw how you guys handle those situations. Pretty good teamwork, I must say.

I feel there are not enough moderators to cover the entire forum with prompt actions when trolls start trolling, so the optimal approach is to shut down the discussion. I don't think that's a good policy because that makes trolls win. They want to destroy the thread and they succeed. Such policy is identical to the stupid policies in real world.

The solution is to increase the number of moderators.

And add potentially ill-intentioned mods? Not a solid-plan.

Edited December 18, 2014 by andrew123

[Crimson Sunrise]

I would ask probably the dumbest question yet:

What happens when a moderator, by any chance, violates the rules?

If by any reason, you think that wouldn't happen in a million years, take that as a hypothetic question

[vexx32]

I can't say I've ever actually seen that happen, but on the occasion that does happen, I would expect something like the following:

1. Be temporarily, or permanently, stripped of their privileges (as the case may demand).
   
2. Be punished as would any other user, infractions, eventual banishment as necessary.
   

That is presuming the offense is serious. For a minor breach of protocol or the rules, typically their senior(s) will come on in, give them a thorough talking to, and fix up any mistakes made.

However, I don't personally know that actual protocol for a serious case of rule breaking by a moderator. For that, we'd have to ask Kasper, or perhaps Rowsdower (I'll leave them a memo to come address this when they awaken, if they are so inclined). I know of exactly one fiasco in the past involving a member of staff, and he stepped down quietly. His grievance was with Squad itself, though, and he was a cool guy overall. I kind of miss him, and his literally tireless greeting of new users (he was a damn machine sometimes, I tell you).

Regardless of what would happen, it would probably not be very visible to most users, apart from the loss of rank. We don't make a habit of publicly shaming anyone, be they users or staff members. It would be dealt with, and any serious repercussions resolved and sorted out, and then life would go on.

[shadowsutekh]

The universe collapses in on itself through a divide by zero error.

But as vexx said, we have to keep to the rules. What's the point in having them if the people upholding them can't stand out as examples of how to conduct yourself? It hasn't ever happened in a year and 6 months of my being a moderator here. But that's one reason why we have senior moderators and administrators and Kasper and rowsdower to watch over everything including us regular moderators. I would imagine said hypothetical moderator would get an extremely stern talking to, and probably a probationary period and if it continued, removal of moderator authority and potential banishment the same as every other forum user here. Having never seen that happen though, I can't be 100% sure, but breaking the rules isn't likely to be encountered.

Edited December 18, 2014 by shadowsutekh
I can't tell my fellow moderators apart with 4 hrs of sleep

[PakledHostage]

The solution is to increase the number of moderators.

I don't agree. They've already described how they use the "report post" feature to serve as an extra set of eyes. I think it works well. Indeed, I think the mods here do an excellent job! But even good things need to be done in (for lack of a better word) moderation... Sometimes the subject of a thread may, strictly speaking, be "verboten" but I don't see why we shouldn't be allowed to continue a discussion if it is done in a mature and polite manner. A science labs discussion about global warming may get heated and turn to politics or a discussion about evolution may devolve into a religious debate, but I believe that those controversies are often healthy. Maybe we won't change our own minds or those of our opponents, but perhaps someone else lurking on the thread will start to ask the right questions?

And while I don't think the particular thread that spawned this discussion was a good example of the type of thread that should be allowed to continue, I would have been happy to hear the perspectives of some of our Russian friends about what is currently happening in their country. It has implications, not only for global political stability, but also for their space program.

Edit: I feel the need to add that I didn't realise that the locked thread I was thinking about when I wrote the above was actually started by Kerbtrek. Hopefully my comments make more sense in that context.

Edited December 18, 2014 by PakledHostage
Added a sentence to clarify my point

[Claw]

I've been very reluctant to get drawn into this thread, primarily because I am already completely overloaded in the support forums after the release of 0.90. Maybe aside from the thoughts that we like to crush down rogue posts and thread, perhaps also take a second to look at some of the positive work that we do. I'm not looking for sympathy, just pointing out that we do quite a bit more than just wait in the wings to swoop in on unsuspecting threads to hammer them shut.

I don't think that's a good policy because that makes trolls win. They want to destroy the thread and they succeed.

I whole-heartedly agree with you. Which is why we really do prefer to post little reminders, split threads, or remove posts rather than rampantly lock threads. The problem comes in when a troll shows up and everyone starts feeding the troll. When we end up with thread that contains a series of posts which are nothing but angry back and forth, there's not a lot of meat left in the thread that makes sense. It's much better to ignore the troll completely, and/or press the report button for us to come and take a look. Much like a stray cat, once people start feeding the troll, the troll won't go away.

What happens when a moderator, by any chance, violates the rules?

I think Vexx covered this pretty well. I would also like to say that the moderators are very cognizant that what we say as individuals often gets taken with an aura of "moderator" even when we try to give our own personal opinion. Most of us will even take the time to ask other moderators if a personal post we are about to make sounds out of place. There is a reason why you rarely (if ever) see a moderator's personal thoughts in a thread about politics, religion, or other typically sticky thread topics.

Also, as mentioned before, we do "get it wrong" at times. What I'm hoping that you see out of this thread is that we are also willing to discuss things, as adults, without knee jerk reactions and heated discussion.

Cheers, and happy kerbaling.

~Claw

Edited December 18, 2014 by Claw

[KasperVld]

The topic of moderators breaking the rules is a very interesting one. Generally I'd say that the moderators here are aware of their position and consider themselves held to higher standards, that may in part be due to the selection process: we haven't had an 'open' moderator application process in a long time, the moderators here are hand picked by the existing staff based on their post history and general attitude. I can recall one or two cases where moderators have broken the community rules in the past, but I really don't feel like pointing people out. The result of such actions really depend on the severity but it can lead (and has in the past) to people being 'fired' as a moderator.

Moderator conduct is a constant point of attention, and we have an explicit passage in the community rules about what the course of action is when you don't agree with a moderator: "If you disagree with a member of staff contact him or her first and hold all discussions in a civil manner. If the answer isn't satisfactory you can contact a senior member of staff." - which would usually be a blue named moderator (if it's a green name moderator you disagree with), myself or Rowsdower. All infractions that are issued on the forums will get a second look by senior moderators and as Vexx, Vanamonde and Claw said we have an IRC channel in which we discuss things we're uncertain about; everyone brings something up for discussion every now and then, including the most senior staff.

So, if you ever disagree with a moderator, just ask him who his senior is or look it up [thread=82234]here[/thread] and send that person a message. Everyone can/will make mistakes, us included.

[Crimson Sunrise]

I don't agree. They've already described how they use the "report post" feature to serve as an extra set of eyes. I think it works well. Indeed, I think the mods here do an excellent job! But even good things need to be done in (for lack of a better word) moderation... Sometimes the subject of a thread may, strictly speaking, be "verboten" but I don't see why we shouldn't be allowed to continue a discussion if it is done in a mature and polite manner. A science labs discussion about global warming may get heated and turn to politics or a discussion about evolution may devolve into a religious debate, but I believe that those controversies are often healthy. Maybe we won't change our own minds or those of our opponents, but perhaps someone else lurking on the thread will start to ask the right questions?

And while I don't think the particular thread that spawned this discussion was a good example of the type of thread that should be allowed to continue, I would have been happy to hear the perspectives of some of our Russian friends about what is currently happening in their country. It has implications, not only for global political stability, but also for their space program.

I think those types of diversions are spearheaded by people that can't spend five minutes inside a subject without having to be heard. Mainly because controversial (at least for the alienated and ignorant) topics are crushed by stupid talks about belifefs or trash talk about politics.

Considering this is a game still under development, I think that the 'development suggestions' is the most controversial of areas. Maybe limiting new users from posting there only after a number of posts have been made in other areas so they can get a feel for how the forum works? Some forums (which I won't mention to avoid comparisons) do that. Granted that, from what I've read so far, the usefulness of said forum is put into question, but still.

[vexx32]

Well, I suppose we could do that, but I seriously doubt it would make a great deal of difference. I'm in the Suggestions and Development Discussion section almost all the time, and I don't really think it's that controversial. There are a few members here and there who have very extreme ideas, and sometimes very protective of their ideas or antagonistic towards other members who disagree to some extent, but for the most part it's fairly calm and reasonable. It is somewhat overwhelming, in the sense that there is always a lot going on there, but it's relatively uncommon for people to become too out of sorts.

Besides, the members who seem to feel most strongly about the game one way or the other tend to be veterans, not newbies, in my experience. Restricting the section based on post count or something similarly arbitrary might have the opposite effect you'd want.

[Crimson Sunrise]

Well, I suppose we could do that, but I seriously doubt it would make a great deal of difference. I'm in the Suggestions and Development Discussion section almost all the time, and I don't really think it's that controversial. There are a few members here and there who have very extreme ideas, and sometimes very protective of their ideas or antagonistic towards other members who disagree to some extent, but for the most part it's fairly calm and reasonable. It is somewhat overwhelming, in the sense that there is always a lot going on there, but it's relatively uncommon for people to become too out of sorts.

Besides, the members who seem to feel most strongly about the game one way or the other tend to be veterans, not newbies, in my experience. Restricting the section based on post count or something similarly arbitrary might have the opposite effect you'd want.

Right, mainly because post counts for users, IMO, are a stupid way of imposing a sense of hierarchy.

[sal_vager]

...Maybe limiting new users from posting there only after a number of posts have been made in other areas so they can get a feel for how the forum works?...

Right, mainly because post counts for users, IMO, are a stupid way of imposing a sense of hierarchy.

Hmm, something isn't right here, oh I see, you're trolling and trying to see how far you can get away with it.

[shadowfax]

But, judging by this thread and its posted content so far, some users still think that this is a harsh solution; hence my proposal.

You're going with the bandwagoning fallacy? Might want to pick something else if you're trying to be persuasive. Especially since every forum on the planet has "some users" who "think (insert moderator policy here) is a harsh solution."

[Crimson Sunrise]

Hmm, something isn't right here, oh I see, you're trolling and trying to see how far you can get away with it.

That joke was so funny that I forgot to laugh at it.

You're going with the bandwagoning fallacy? Might want to pick something else if you're trying to be persuasive. Especially since every forum on the planet has "some users" who "think (insert moderator policy here) is a harsh solution."

Needless to say, that pointing a fallacy in another persons argument is a fallacy indeed.

Edited December 18, 2014 by vexx32
Merged double post.

[vexx32]

Well, we've quickly abandoned all forms of rational reasoning, I see.

Attempting to call something a fallacy when someone hasn't even presented an argument is a bit, well... yeah, it doesn't really hold up. A fallacy, by definition, is a flaw in an argument. Shadowfax presented no argument; he simply pointed out the flaw in yours. Calling that a fallacy is extremely nonsensical.

Now then, we're quickly getting off-topic. This is hardly the place to debate logic itself, if such a thing can even rationally be done. Let's keep to the topic.

[Crimson Sunrise]

Well, we've quickly abandoned all forms of rational reasoning, I see.

Attempting to call something a fallacy when someone hasn't even presented an argument is a bit, well... yeah, it doesn't really hold up. A fallacy, by definition, is a flaw in an argument. Shadowfax presented no argument; he simply pointed out the flaw in yours. Calling that a fallacy is extremely nonsensical.

Now then, we're quickly getting off-topic. This is hardly the place to debate logic itself, if such a thing can even rationally be done. Let's keep to the topic.

I'll give you that in response http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy

[Norpo]

*attempts to get thread on track*

I make no claims to know anything about the process moderators here use, but really, the best moderation, in my opinion, is simple. All one should have to take into account is, for basically anything

-severity of situation: (Did one person just insult another mildly or is it a flame war?) 1st situation could probably be ignored (but the thread should be watched, in case someone gets offended and heats up the situation), and the last is probably irrecoverable (lock the thread, or if it's seriously out of hand, delete it entirely)

-does it actually effect anyone, and/or the thread as a whole: (A long thread isn't a problem due to the last page button, and a few stupid posts don't affect anything if people got quickly back on track. A flame war, or a persistent stupid poster, DOES effect the thread. Remove things before they get out of hand. A single seed blossoms into a wildfire, if left unchecked.)

-is it one person or is it everyone? (Surely, telling "who started it" is a huge problem and it just gets to a he said she said situation and it's just annoying. If an entire thread devolves into this, with little-to-none conversation about the original topic, it should be closed.

-was it an accident? (EVERYONE makes mistakes. All. The. Time. But there's a select few individuals who just LOVE to get the ban hammer, why not deliver? If you're spamming "afhfakjfakjwhfkjawhfkja" on every post, then you're OBVIOUSLY trying to get banned, why not deliver? it's not like it could of been "i'm sory it was an acidnt", meanwhile saying "...That's stupid" once isn't severe, sure it's not civil and adds absolutely squat to the conversation, but it's not like they're purposefully trying to kill the thread.)

-does it actually add anything, to anything? (Humour is great. But a whole opening post shouldn't be "i like pie, discuss". Unless this is a pie baking thread and not a thread about science and a game about space, like I thought. Meanwhile, a single POST, not a thread, should probably be able to make a joke, as long as it adds *something*, likewise, low value posts, like "???", "DOWNLOADING!!1!" should be deleted, depending on the thread. A few threads can have low value posts (forum games), but some you should add something, good or bad to the discussion, or don't post at all. In essence; If it looks like it could of been written in an entirely different context, then it's probably low value. And an opening post should be high value, otherwise it just encourages low value posts.)

You probably wouldn't have to memorize all the details of these bullet points, just the basic concepts.

To finish

-stupid people do exist

-but they are not necessarially trying to kill the thread, they might be though

-that doesn't mean they're innocent

-opening posts attract posts of similar quality, thus some threads are far more likely to devolve into flame wars

-a member who is clearly not adding anything to any post should be warned, or banned if they continue.

-threads should be locked if they devolve into total flame wars, nothing less. surgical post removal is a preferred method

-severity of situations is important. one stupid poster doesn't warrant a thread lock, it warrants a post removal. Ask yourself, "Would this thread be fine if I removed this post?", if the answer is yes, do it.

-a serious topic deserves serious posts, remove obviously very low quality posts

My 2 cents, as a moderator for another forum and gaming server, smaller than this one, mind you. This post was made somewhat quickly, so surely there's some "Wait, earlier he said THIS... moments"

[vexx32]

*attempts to get thread on track*

- s n i p f o r l e n g t h -

To finish

-stupid people do exist

-but they are not necessarially trying to kill the thread, they might be though

-that doesn't mean they're innocent

-opening posts attract posts of similar quality, thus some threads are far more likely to devolve into flame wars

-a member who is clearly not adding anything to any post should be warned, or banned if they continue.

-threads should be locked if they devolve into total flame wars, nothing less. surgical post removal is a preferred method

-severity of situations is important. one stupid poster doesn't warrant a thread lock, it warrants a post removal. Ask yourself, "Would this thread be fine if I removed this post?", if the answer is yes, do it.

-a serious topic deserves serious posts, remove obviously very low quality posts

My 2 cents, as a moderator for another forum and gaming server, smaller than this one, mind you. This post was made somewhat quickly, so surely there's some "Wait, earlier he said THIS... moments"

Looks pretty cohesive to me.

And that's essentially what we try to do. It gets a little complicated sometimes -- things aren't always crystal clear, after all -- but that's why we don't work alone.

And as you mentioned, lajos, it's often better to prune threads than outright get rid of them. Getting rid of them is something we try to avoid doing, where possible.

[AmpsterMan]

I would like to point something out, something that is common to most online discussions and, indeed, real life discussions too. This thread itself is an example of how flame wars arise and how difficult it is to moderate. We've had a few posts here in this thread itself that have been derailments, troll posts (at least, by my count) personal arguments, flame bait, "your argument is a fallacy; no your argument of my argument being a fallacy is a fallacy" fallacies, Red Herrings, Strawmen, Slippery Slopes, assumptions with no bases, conclusions with no bases, insults, and over gerneralizations (including this post itself).

I would like to point out, as others have in this thread, we take a LOT of consideration for our moderation actions; we discuss almost every action we take. We stand on every political and ideological spectrum you can think of (I invited our moderators to take an ideological test to see where we stand; we ranged from very Free Market, Hands Off, Guvmint and all forms of Control are evil [me], to very Control oriented, Socialist, Free Speech isn't always great, etc. types) I invited our moderators to take a personality test, again for my own amusement; I think most of us were INTJ, with like 1 INFJ, and INTP (Me)

My purpose for bringing this up is because I understand that it may seem we make posts in isolation; some of us are more active than others; some of us sound more authoritarian (that's because some of us ARE more authoritarian); some of us are more legalistic; some of us are more talkative than others; some of us interpret rules more loosley then others; some of us are more passionate about our view points, etc. Indeed, believe it or not, we are not automatons handling out bans, closing threads, and shooting down discussions left and right; we only have one extra reponsibility to other forum goers, that is, to enforce the rules. We don't need to agree with rules; we don't need to like them. In fact, we've had a few discussions on what rules need to be on, how to present them, even the wording; what the punishments should be, how lenient/strong to be. Heck, there are rules I don't like myself, but you know what? I follow it because it is the written contract of posting on these forums. If I want to participate, I have to follow. If I want to be accepted into the fold, as it were, I have to follow the social contract as well. This takes more time to develop but it is the same.

TL;DR Massive off-topic post with little value to the discussion at hand

Also, please let's try to keep the discussion of political matters off of here please