Changes to Rule Enforcement

Oriphiel · 05-29-2015, 04:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Engine

Aww yeah!

~~Soulflower~~ · 05-29-2015, 06:42 AM

Just implement the rules and dont ask for suggestions. Thats the whole point in being in a leadership role anyway. Most here dont want rules because they dont see their behavior as a problem because most here are apart of the problem. There needs to be more rules for this site because the way people disrespect, abuse their mod position and bully others here is horrendous. I have been on multiple forums and its a utter mad house here.

Guybrush · 05-29-2015, 06:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Exo_

We don't have people on here attacking people for no reason. It's ALWAYS in the midst of a discussion that involves a hot button topic like police, race, religion, ect. The mods just need to watch these threads closer. There will always be flair ups in random threads like the Your Day thread yesterday. They just don't happen as often.

I'm not suggesting people don't discuss certain topics. I am for a rule enforcing policy which moderately punishes those who can't do so in a civilized way. I personally don't refrain from discussing topics because discussing them is somehow useless if I can't break the rules and so I think this problem is made up. The solution is simple: just discuss without breaking the rules too much.

If you want to protect rule breaking behaviour on the forums because you think it is fun and the boards become stale without it, that's an opinion you can have, sure. I just don't agree with it.

Ninetales · 05-29-2015, 08:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soulflower

Just implement the rules and dont ask for suggestions. Thats the whole point in being in a leadership role anyway.

that's actually the opposite of good leadership

Neapolitan · 05-29-2015, 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tore

I've proposed this system before and am proposing it again, if only as a temporary experiment.

The philosophy here is simple; change rule enforcement so that negative actions carry predictable negative consequences. If you stick your hand in the fire, you should get burnt. Today, consequences are lacking, inconsistent and unpredictable.

I've summarized my suggestion in 4 simple points which I've numbered for some reason.

...

4. Users (and mods?) should change their thinking about moderation and mods

Users may need to change their mentality about punishment. Basically, you are "allowed" to break a rule, but it will cost you temporary infractions. When you get more than 10 infractions, you are temporarily banned until your total amount comes under 10. That means that if you have 0 infractions, you can calculate how many times you can break the rules. Possibly, you can break it two or three times without getting a temp ban. Hence, the proposed system is lenient and does allow for one word posts or personal attacks, just in reduced numbers. It promotes thinking before posting.

For moderators, the system suggests sending an awful lot of PMs which they undoubtedly would get pissy replies to. Pissy on PMs is fine; it doesn't hurt the forums. Be cool, rise above it and remember that personal is not the same as important. Be consistent, predictable and act with integrity.

But who is to say that a mod wants to read "pissy PM." I think that would wear on ones nerves.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oriphiel

It sounds alright in theory, but I just don't know if it'll make things better. Either way, even if everyone voted for it and the mods decided to go ahead with it, I'd still recommend that we have a trial run first. After trying it for a week or so, we could have another vote/discussion about it.

Reminds me of a quote I came across lately.

Freebase Dali · 05-29-2015, 08:52 PM

My personal mod answer:

We rely on our judgment calls to decide whether something within the community is detrimental or incidental. Sure, it may be reactive and it may not be consistent from an outside perspective, but the calls are made and are variable and that is a good thing. To support and nurture a variable community that does not operate like robots adhering to a strict code, where many individual personalities may mesh or clash, it requires more of an attention to the tone of the community as a whole than the strict adherence to a strict expectation irrelevant of context.

It would be very easy to expect total adherence to such a thing, but it would not be very realistic. Not given the disparity of mods to members, and not given the variety and nature of relationships native to the environment.
Some might say the environment is not policed well enough, and that could be true, but how many are you willing to alienate by force in order for everyone to conform to an unrealistic ideal, given the nature of people?

I think good moderation is less about the ease of black and white, and more about the requirement for judgement calls in the context of the community as a whole, which black and white calls often tend to disregard for the sake of a fantasy of the Utopian internet community. I think it's harder to use judgement, but it's ultimately more beneficial when considering the people that make your site a success in the first place.

I'm not saying that it's required to sacrifice your own set standards as leadership. I'm saying that it's required to, as a mod, have to THINK about how you're enforcing those standards in the context of a living, breathing community.

It's easy to say "don't do X", but it's a lot harder to describe "X". And when you take the route of not thinking about what "X" really is, apart from a written law, then your membership won't be able to either, and you'll start losing their confidence to contribute in any way at all.

TL;DR: Proper judgement shouldn't be a defined system. It should be an application of wisdom.

Guybrush · 05-30-2015, 02:20 AM

I'm not calling for moderators to act like robots. I think that's an exaggeration and one of several strawmen being thrown around. Are cops in the real world robots just because they don't sit back and do nothing? No. Like I'm suggesting, they do have precedent for how to deal with a situation, but they still use judgment. I'm not saying erase judgment altogether, but don't use judgment to do nothing.

As I wrote earlier, musicbanter is like a playground of really noisy kids and the moderators are the parents. If the noisy kids are a bother to you, you get irritated with parents who do nothing. Don't they know the kids will only get worse and louder? When a kid does something outrageously awful, there might be repercussions and then the kid throws a complete tantrum due to the indignation that a parent should try to control them. Usually, everyone else has to watch this and suffer it.

I mentioned musicbanter is like a natural environment. Like snow might select for white rabbits, musicbanter selects for - using the same analogy - loud kids and people who can stand them. Others leave or don't even bother coming and this has been going on for years. If you don't see this problem, you are likely either a loud kid or one who can stomach them. You've been naturally selected for the current environment.

Consistent rule enforcement is the only way of tackling this problem. The rules have to be bigger and more important than any one mod or any one member. You can't use judgment calls to ignore them altogether.

edit :

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freebase Dali

TL;DR: Proper judgement shouldn't be a defined system. It should be an application of wisdom.

Defined systems are the norm for a reason. It has, among others, the following benefits :

Less confusion about the job which makes it easier to know what to do
The rules are to blame rather than the enforcer
Lets rules be rules instead of rough guidelines
Is predictable to other members so they'll generally know when they're crossing the line
Is better at creating a rule-adhering environment

Many are treating rule breaking as if they're generally victimless crimes. They are not. Judgment calls used to do nothing means the interests of the offended are not protected, only the interests of the offender.

The Batlord · 05-30-2015, 02:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tore

I'm not calling for moderators to act like robots. I think that's an exaggeration and one of several strawmen being thrown around. Are cops in the real world robots just because they don't sit back and do nothing? No. Like I'm suggesting, they do have precedent for how to deal with a situation, but they still use judgment. I'm not saying erase judgment altogether, but don't use judgment to do nothing.

As I wrote earlier, musicbanter is like a playground of really noisy kids and the moderators are the parents. If the noisy kids are a bother to you, you get irritated with parents who do nothing. Don't they know the kids will only get worse and louder? When a kid does something outrageously awful, there might be repercussions and then the kid throws a complete tantrum due to the indignation that a parent should try to control them. Usually, everyone else has to watch this and suffer it.

I mentioned musicbanter is like a natural environment. Like snow might select for white rabbits, musicbanter selects for - using the same analogy - loud kids and people who can stand them. Others leave or don't even bother coming. This has been going on for years. Consistent rule enforcement is the only way of tackling this. The rules have to be bigger and more important than any one mod or any one member.

You're assuming that the non-loud kids' environment is preferable. Personally, I'd rather hang out with the loud kids, cause they're more fun.

Guybrush · 05-30-2015, 02:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Batlord

You're assuming that the non-loud kids' environment is preferable. Personally, I'd rather hang out with the loud kids, cause they're more fun.

Yes, I do think it is preferable. There are many activities you can't really enjoy when there are loud kids around, like you're trying to build a cool sand castle and a loud kid comes and stomps on it. Parents probably allow some stomping.

But it's not just about my preference. We have rules here, but no predictable consequences when they are broken. In practice, they stop being rules - they lose all integrity.

I'd say either get a system of enforcing rules like I proposed and follow an ideal that they consistently matter - or change the rules so that they reflect how you actually want things to be. Right now, MB is pretty two faced. When was the last time someone got punished for a short nonsense post? Yet, this is not allowed by the rules. If it is to be allowed, then at least change the rule. If rules are guidelines, state that they are guidelines.

(And make a new rules thread so my name isn't on it)

The Batlord · 05-30-2015, 02:48 AM

05-29-2015, 08:52 PM	#116 (permalink)
Freebase Dali Partying on the inside Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 5,584	My personal mod answer: We rely on our judgment calls to decide whether something within the community is detrimental or incidental. Sure, it may be reactive and it may not be consistent from an outside perspective, but the calls are made and are variable and that is a good thing. To support and nurture a variable community that does not operate like robots adhering to a strict code, where many individual personalities may mesh or clash, it requires more of an attention to the tone of the community as a whole than the strict adherence to a strict expectation irrelevant of context. It would be very easy to expect total adherence to such a thing, but it would not be very realistic. Not given the disparity of mods to members, and not given the variety and nature of relationships native to the environment. Some might say the environment is not policed well enough, and that could be true, but how many are you willing to alienate by force in order for everyone to conform to an unrealistic ideal, given the nature of people? I think good moderation is less about the ease of black and white, and more about the requirement for judgement calls in the context of the community as a whole, which black and white calls often tend to disregard for the sake of a fantasy of the Utopian internet community. I think it's harder to use judgement, but it's ultimately more beneficial when considering the people that make your site a success in the first place. I'm not saying that it's required to sacrifice your own set standards as leadership. I'm saying that it's required to, as a mod, have to THINK about how you're enforcing those standards in the context of a living, breathing community. It's easy to say "don't do X", but it's a lot harder to describe "X". And when you take the route of not thinking about what "X" really is, apart from a written law, then your membership won't be able to either, and you'll start losing their confidence to contribute in any way at all. TL;DR: Proper judgement shouldn't be a defined system. It should be an application of wisdom. __________________

05-29-2015, 06:42 AM	#112 (permalink)
~~Soulflower~~ Account Disabled Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 2,304	Just implement the rules and dont ask for suggestions. Thats the whole point in being in a leadership role anyway. Most here dont want rules because they dont see their behavior as a problem because most here are apart of the problem. There needs to be more rules for this site because the way people disrespect, abuse their mod position and bully others here is horrendous. I have been on multiple forums and its a utter mad house here.