Why moderation is so simplistic?

[Kulebron]

Recently, there was a thread about Russian economy collapse. On the second page, there comes kerbtrek, I assume, a native English speaker and insults me of being brainwashed, then starts a flamewar by overly judgemental posts, while having no expertize. Moderators come and close the thread, then even delete it completely.

I admit I took part in flamewar in 1 post, but even if I hadn't, this thread would have been locked and deleted anyway.

I, who contributed more than an hour writing descriptive posts, feel indignated. This means that any thread can be deleted if there comes a troll. Then I see no reason to post anything substantial that changes readers' perspective, because controversial threads, that deal with harder topics, are forbidden here by default.

It seems that we are only allowed to discuss "sandbox" topics, where everything is fine. But I see enough people who can deal with controversy and stay politically correct. The only problem with these discussions is that many posters are judgemental and feel experts on topics they know by cliches only. Very useful discussions are happening when people post about themselves and ask. I think, bad behavior can be dealt with faster moderation and trolling/flaming cleanups.

Can moderators, please, explain what are the difficulties with this now?

Edited December 17, 2014 by Kulebron

[KasperVld]

Hi Kulebron, I fear we may not have explained things too well (or at all) in this case, apologies for that. You're right that even if you hadn't taken part in the 'flamewar' the thread would've probably been closed. The reason is that for all good intentions of allowing discussion on a lot of topics here, this is in the end still a forum about a space related game in which you shoot little green men out of the atmosphere. One of the things we don't allow on these forums are political discussions, and the current situation the Russian economy is linked to politics to a degree that we feel it cannot be discussed without violating the 'no political discussion' rule. In the end, that's why the thread was closed. Your posts were excellent, nothing wrong with that.

I hope that explains it a lot better.

[PakledHostage]

this is in the end still a forum about a space related game in which you shoot little green men out of the atmosphere.

For what it is worth, I think this community is more than a forum about a space related game in which you shoot little green men out of the atmosphere. That may be the foundation of the community, but the game attracts a certain type of person. While there are certainly some in this community who are socially awkward, for the most part we get along surprisingly well. There are topics that I would love to hear people's opinions about, given that we come from such varied backgrounds. You might argue that other forums might be better suited to some of those discussions, but I feel a kinship with the sciencey nerds who call this place home. I would like to hear their opions, not those of some random [rate of change of acceleration with respect to time] on the internet. I suspect that I am not alone in this regard.

[Crimson Sunrise]

Hi Kulebron, I fear we may not have explained things too well (or at all) in this case, apologies for that. You're right that even if you hadn't taken part in the 'flamewar' the thread would've probably been closed. The reason is that for all good intentions of allowing discussion on a lot of topics here, this is in the end still a forum about a space related game in which you shoot little green men out of the atmosphere. One of the things we don't allow on these forums are political discussions, and the current situation the Russian economy is linked to politics to a degree that we feel it cannot be discussed without violating the 'no political discussion' rule. In the end, that's why the thread was closed. Your posts were excellent, nothing wrong with that.

I hope that explains it a lot better.

Sorry for asking, but:

Was the responsible for starting said flame war punished in some way? If not, your point seems a bit moot in my opinion.

[KasperVld]

Sorry for asking, but:

Was the responsible for starting said flame war punished in some way? If not, your point seems a bit moot in my opinion.

We don't comment on what punishments we do or do not enforce on certain people - I don't think anyone would appreciate it if they were put in the spotlights like that. You can always ask them, of course..

[Crimson Sunrise]

We don't comment on what punishments we do or do not enforce on certain people - I don't think anyone would appreciate it if they were put in the spotlights like that. You can always ask them, of course..

I'm not asking how he was punished. I'm asking if he was punished or not. Sure his name was mentioned up there, but...You know how it goes, specially if said person is a moderator. But that's just what I think.

[Kulebron]

Just 2 cents: I personally don't care if that person is punished or not, at least this is a single offence.

What I care about is whether I can contribute and not waste time in a derailed thread. I use SkyscraperCity forums, and there the policy is like that of New York subway: bad stuff (like insults) gets deleted quickly. This lets good contributors feel their worthness, and trolls always have an uphill battle. Whatever they do, threads continue, and most users don't even notice small incidents. I'd like to see the same approach here.

For what it is worth, I think this community is more than a forum about a space related game in which you shoot little green men out of the atmosphere. That may be the foundation of the community, but the game attracts a certain type of person. While there are certainly some in this community who are socially awkward, for the most part we get along surprisingly well. There are topics that I would love to hear people's opinions about, given that we come from such varied backgrounds. You might argue that other forums might be better suited to some of those discussions, but I feel a kinship with the sciencey nerds who call this place home. I would like to hear their opions, not those of some random [rate of change of acceleration with respect to time] on the internet. I suspect that I am not alone in this regard.

Totally agree. By the way, I've been to political forums, they are disgusting.

Edited December 17, 2014 by Kulebron

[Camacha]

This means that any thread can be deleted if there comes a troll.

I have commented on this gaping hole in the policy numerous times before, sometimes earning infractions in the process. Though some improvement has been made, it remains an issue. There have been too many valuable or promising threads that were simply killed because some people could not contain themselves. That hurts the community as a whole, but not really the people doing it. That way, nothing is going to change, except that the community has become a bit less valuable.

[zekes]

I have commented on this gaping hole in the policy numerous times before, sometimes earning infractions in the process. Though some improvement has been made, it remains an issue. There have been too many valuable or promising threads that were simply killed because some people could not contain themselves. That hurts the community as a whole, but not really the people doing it. That way, nothing is going to change, except that the community has become a bit less valuable.

What he said.... I lost my favorite thread because of a troll....

Edited December 18, 2014 by zekes

[Crimson Sunrise]

I have commented on this gaping hole in the policy numerous times before, sometimes earning infractions in the process. Though some improvement has been made, it remains an issue. There have been too many valuable or promising threads that were simply killed because some people could not contain themselves. That hurts the community as a whole, but not really the people doing it. That way, nothing is going to change, except that the community has become a bit less valuable.

As Frank Zappa would say about this occurence: "This is the equivalent of treating dandruff by cutting you head off."

[rodion]

i agree that there is very poor justification ever to close a whole thread (so long as its premise contains meaningful content) on the basis of the actions of individual posters, or the course the thread it taking. the key to moderation is contained in the word - moderation - and it's a more favorable outcome for the community if derailed discussion is guided by a firm but benevolent hand rather than nuked by fiat.

[andrew123]

i agree that there is very poor justification ever to close a whole thread (so long as its premise contains meaningful content) on the basis of the actions of individual posters, or the course the thread it taking. the key to moderation is contained in the word - moderation - and it's a more favorable outcome for the community if derailed discussion is guided by a firm but benevolent hand rather than nuked by fiat.

I agree.

Of course, the last restart wasn't a total loss. The rocket builder subforum is experiencing a sort of renaissance, lately.

(And, ironically, it's even more militarized than before, which I may have played a role in. It's the hydra: cut off one head, and two replace it.)

[Crimson Sunrise]

I agree.

Of course, the last restart wasn't a total loss. The rocket builder subforum is experiencing a sort of renaissance, lately.

(And, ironically, it's even more militarized than before, which I may have played a role in. It's the hydra: cut off one head, and two replace it.)

Well...In general harsh unjustified actions generally result in higher resistance towards them. Pretty much like trying to solve the problem of guns with more guns.

[Xaiier]

I'm going to have to agree with the moderators point of view for this one.

Often times, single posts are deleted for the sake of many a topic. If a thread is closed, it means that that topic was prone to causing further arguments, requiring constant attention from the moderators to police it and keep it in line. I would rather have a little less freedom in topics than have the moderators be overloaded with a number of topics that they have to keep close watch on and the quality of the entire forum decline as a result.

[Crimson Sunrise]

I'm going to have to agree with the moderators point of view for this one.

Often times, single posts are deleted for the sake of many a topic. If a thread is closed, it means that that topic was prone to causing further arguments, requiring constant attention from the moderators to police it and keep it in line. I would rather have a little less freedom in topics than have the moderators be overloaded with a number of topics that they have to keep close watch on and the quality of the entire forum decline as a result.

As a disclaimer, most of what I'll say is based on prior experiences being a member of other forums with 'iron fist' moderation. My answers so far are based on what's been posted so far about the actions on the moderator's part. Continuing....

I don't personally think that parenting is a good idea. Plus the moderators job is, suprisingly enough, moderate the forum and not just sit and watch the breeze pass by. I'm pretty sure that most people that start such topics in an intelligent manner don't do it just to cause controversy.

IMO, if a moderator doesn't like to do that sort of thing, then why he either volunteered to be one or accepted invitations for it, especially considering that in 99% of cases, you're not being paid to be a moderator in the first place? I hope it's not because of just the position, otherwise, you're not worth much as a person.

Sure, some controversial subjects should be avoided for the sake of common sense, but throwing an entire apple basket because of a couple of rotten ones doesn't do much justice for the (hopefully) higher amount of people that's able to carry a polite discussion about subjects without resorting to fallacies and personal attacks. I'm not sure about you, but given the type of game this forum circles around, I'm pretty sure people around here at least have a little more intellect and common sense than, say....An anime forum or similar.

I would even say that, sometimes, this type of turmoil is even necessary when you have more moderators than necessary, especially to keep them from plotting against users (which is something I've seen happening before and it's not funny to talk about).

[Vanamonde]

When a thread goes off the rails, there are often posts which would offend some of our members. We are then faced with a choice: a) hack out parts and hope it doesn't go bad again, possibly leaving the discussion incomprehensible because parts of it are missing, or shutdown or remove the whole thing. Sometimes, we do decide the situation is bad enough to warrant closing or removing the thread. It's not something we do lightly, or simply because we don't like the subject. We do this to protect our members from attacks by other members. There are also times when tempers are high and if we left certain posts in public view, others would be tempted to put in their 2 cents, and the problem would continue and we'd have to hand out more infractions. It makes more sense simply to remove the questionable content from public view and put an end to the problem once and for all.

Furthermore, we moderators do not act alone. We discuss and confer and get each other's opinions before taking serious action such as closing threads. When it happens, it's not arbitrary fiat, but a consensus among the moderators that the thread can't be saved.

And Crimson Sunshine, we do not share personal information about one member with other members. That includes that person's infraction history. Our goal is not to shame the people we do infract and identify them as troublemakers, but to demonstrate to that person that the conduct in question will not be tolerated.

Thread closings or removals are drastic tools, but they are tools we will continue to use when we have to.

Edited December 18, 2014 by Vanamonde

[Crimson Sunrise]

And Crimson Sunshine, we do not share personal information about one member with other members. That includes that person's infraction history. Our goal is not to shame the people we do infract and identify them as troublemakers, but to demonstrate to that person that the conduct in question will not be tolerated.

You are awarded less points for hastly mispronouncing my user name, Mr. Bananamonde

Here's another solution for your problem. Identify the users that are constantly causing problems on a said topic and just keep them from posting in that thread. I'm pretty sure that's possible, right? Personally, that would be more significative than locking a thread and could teach people on how to voice their opinion better.

[Vanamonde]

Oops. Sorry about the name, Crimson Sunrise.

Identify the users that are constantly causing problems on a said topic and just keep them from posting in that thread.

I'm afraid you've missed my point. Closings/removals do not happen if the problem is isolated and can be contained. We only take those measures when a persistent or particularly bad situation has arisen, we have conferred with each other, and agreed that the thread can't be salvaged and will just continue to be a problem if left open or in public view. If we think the problem can be contained, we try that approach first.

[Crimson Sunrise]

Oops. Sorry about the name, Crimson Sunrise.

I'm afraid you've missed my point. Closings/removals do not happen if the problem is isolated and can be contained. We only take those measures when a persistent or particularly bad situation has arisen, we have conferred with each other, and agreed that the thread can't be salvaged and will just continue to be a problem if left open or in public view. If we think the problem can be contained, we try that approach first.

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

[vexx32]

You are awarded less points for hastly mispronouncing my user name, Mr. Bananamonde

Here's another solution for your problem. Identify the users that are constantly causing problems on a said topic and just keep them from posting in that thread. I'm pretty sure that's possible, right? Personally, that would be more significative than locking a thread and could teach people on how to voice their opinion better.

Not on this software platform.

And besides, that level of micromanagement would just breed its own problems. You can't please everyone, and we would waste everyone's time if we tried to. The instant we started locking specific people out of threads, there'd be some kind of uproar that we're discriminating based on who knows what, or people would be affronted that we dared decide who should and shouldn't have the right to participate in certain discussions.

And as Vanamonde mentioned, if there's any chance the discussion can be salvaged, we always attempt that first. The alternative (removing the thread) is clearly a more drastic measure, but it is typically a last resort.

One thing you really must remember is that we're a team of moderators, and that means that most of us see a lot of this kind of thing -- often before any of you ever see it. We can tell quite reliably when a discussion has taken a turn for the worse. Certainly, we occasionally have errors in judgement, but that is exactly why we discuss things before coming to a conclusion. One person may err in their judgement from time to time, but a team of people working together typically functions much more smoothly and considerately.

Looking through the thread that sparked this discussion (these kinds of things tend to be archived and tucked away in case they're needed in future, rather than actually deleted), it's pretty easy to see that the thread in question was pretty well going to a bad place from the very beginning. Its premise was flawed, it attacked people with essentially baseless claims right from the first few posts, and within a page people were just mouthing off at each other using poorly-executed arguments that had the barest semblance of thoughtful construction.

On top of that, some of the other team members have noted (because naturally we're also discussing this amongst ourselves, as we often do) that the thread that started all this followed right on the heels of a very similarly contentious discussion on much the same subject. It was never going to go to a good place, unfortunately, and sadly that seems to be the case for essentially every political discussion I have ever seen on this forum.

Moderation is far from simplistic, I can assure you. But then, nothing is ever as simple as it seems.

Edited December 18, 2014 by vexx32

[Crimson Sunrise]

Not on this software platform.

And besides, that level of micromanagement would just breed its own problems. You can't please everyone, and we would waste everyone's time if we tried to. The instant we started locking specific people out of threads, there'd be some kind of uproar that we're discriminating based on who knows what, or people would be affronted that we dared decide who should and shouldn't have the right to participate in certain discussions.

And as Vanamonde mentioned, if there's any chance the discussion can be salvaged, we always attempt that first. The alternative (removing the thread) is clearly a more drastic measure, but it is typically a last resort.

One thing you really must remember is that we're a team of moderators, and that means that most of us see a lot of this kind of thing -- often before any of you ever see it. We can tell quite reliably when a discussion has taken a turn for the worse. Certainly, we occasionally have errors in judgement, but that is exactly why we discuss things before coming to a conclusion. One person may err in their judgement from time to time, but a team of people working together typically functions much more smoothly and considerately.

Looking through the thread that parked this discussion (these kinds of things tend to be archived and tucked away in case they're needed in future, rather than actually deleted), it's pretty easy to see that the thread in question was pretty well going to a bad place from the very beginning. Its premise was flawed, it attacked people with essentially baseless claims right from the first few posts, and within a page people were just mouthing off at each other using poorly-executed arguments that had the barest semblance of thoughtful construction.

On top of that, some of the other team members have noted (because naturally we're also discussing this amongst ourselves, as we often do) that the thread that started all this followed right on the heels of a very similarly contentious discussion on much the same subject. It was never going to go to a good place, unfortunately, and sadly that seems to be the case for essentially every political discussion I have ever seen on this forum.

Moderation is far from simplistic, I can assure you. But then, nothing is ever as simple as it seems.

Fair enough. May I ask what's the purpose (if it has any purpose) of the 'Report Post' button if the moderation is so...'tightly clad' like that?

[vexx32]

Well, naturally we aren't perfect. Although we do try our utmost to keep a watchful eye on things, it's quite possible that we may take some time to notice something going awry, and on occasion we may miss one or two things entirely. After all, we are volunteers, and we need to keep our own lives in order. The Report Post function serves to notify us that something needs to be done, or something isn't going right. It's simply a reliable way of getting the whole team's attention.

Although we do commonly discuss things in our private little chatroom, not all of us are necessarily there all at once (we're spread across a multitude of different timezones, after all). Reporting a post ensures as many as possible of us can look at it ASAP and discuss what needs to be done, if anything does need to be done about it. (We do sometimes get reports that we consider to not require any action one way or the other.)

[andrew123]

Well, naturally we aren't perfect. Although we do try our utmost to keep a watchful eye on things, it's quite possible that we may take some time to notice something going awry, and on occasion we may miss one or two things entirely. After all, we are volunteers, and we need to keep our own lives in order. The Report Post function serves to notify us that something needs to be done, or something isn't going right. It's simply a reliable way of getting the whole team's attention.

Although we do commonly discuss things in our private little chatroom, not all of us are necessarily there all at once (we're spread across a multitude of different timezones, after all). Reporting a post ensures as many as possible of us can look at it ASAP and discuss what needs to be done, if anything does need to be done about it. (We do sometimes get reports that we consider to not require any action one way or the other.)

Have you ever heard of the Militaryphotos.net forums? The mods there (especially Hollis) banish anyone at the slightest hint of trolling.

If you want to see how they roll (ban, ban, ban...)

http://www.militaryphotos.net/

It does help keep the peace on their threads. I haven't found a forum with such unforgiving moderators...

[Crimson Sunrise]

Have you ever heard of the Militaryphotos.net forums? The mods there (especially Hollis) banish anyone at the slightest hint of trolling.

If you want to see how they roll (ban, ban, ban...)

http://www.militaryphotos.net/

It does help keep the peace on their threads. I haven't found a forum with such unforgiving moderators...

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.

[andrew123]

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.

The mods on MP.net don't plot against users.

Due to the inherent nature of their forum, it's a necessary evil to ban all trolls.