A possible alternative to tore's proposal for rule change: Trollheart's system - Music Banter Music Banter

Go Back   Music Banter > Community Center > Announcements, Suggestions, & Feedback
Register Blogging Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Welcome to Music Banter Forum! Make sure to register - it's free and very quick! You have to register before you can post and participate in our discussions with over 70,000 other registered members. After you create your free account, you will be able to customize many options, you will have the full access to over 1,100,000 posts.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-05-2015, 08:22 PM   #11 (permalink)
Facilitator
 
VEGANGELICA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Where people kill 30 million pigs per year
Posts: 2,014
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trollheart View Post
Hmm. Thanks for your comments and taking the time to read it through, Vengealica. I do disagree though. If for instance a flag could be shown beside a user's name then we would all know that he or she was on a warning. If the mods have to pick out a user from a thread and send a PM to them advising of an impending infraction (I do not, heartily do not agree with automatic, computer-assigned bans or even warnings) then I think that is the same amount of work, perhaps more because in the thread you can (or they can I should say) issue the demerit, warning, card, whatever there and then, not have to remember to do it later or remind the member why they were infracted.

As I think I pointed out, but may not have been too clear about it, I would envision it ideally working thus:

Step 1: Member A is talking to Member B and calls him a ***got
A mod says "That's not acceptable language. Knock it off."

Step 2: Member A then uses the word again.
A mod says "I warned you; your're on thin ice buddy" (if he or she wishes to give two warnings: that would be up to the mod. He could if he wanted go on to step 3 immediately after step 1)

Step 3: Member A continues in the same behaviour
A mod says "Ok mister! That's it! You have a Yellow Card!"
(That could be bolded) If possible, as I said, a Yellow flag or something could then appear on Member A somewhere. I really don't know the logistics of it, if it's easy or hard to do, but surely something could be done? Even a spreadsheet with names on it? I don't know, but something)

Step 4: Member A, now Yellow carded, remains the same as he was.
A mod says: "Another yellow for you and that's a Red. Enjoy your week off."

Problem dealt with, again in view of all participating members within the thread. No behind-the-scenes skullduggery or ulterior motives can be claimed or accused.
Trollheart, I copied your post from the Changes to Rule Enforcement thread and pasted it here to reply.

Although I do think the playfulness of Yellow and Red Cards is fun, and I agree that reminders of the rules in threads can be useful to inform people that moderation is happening, I have four main thoughts or concerns about your proposed system:

(1) I feel that giving people visible flags or some other visible sign that allows all members to see how many infractions that person has, such as the idea of coloring their avatars yellow or red, creates a feeling of a person being *shamed* publicly, which I oppose.

Seeing people's avatars colored yellow or red, which you suggested, or listing their infractions in a thread, reminds me of the notion of slapping a Scarlet A on someone, which I dislike.

(2) I feel, like Tore (and I) said earlier, that making moderation only subtly apparent, or not apparent at all, in threads is good for the overall flow of conversations and will be less likely to inflame drama.

However, I agree with you that it IS nice to know that rules are being upheld and what sorts of posts are deemed as breaking the rules.

What I've seen moderators do that I really like is go into a post that violates a rule and make a note (in red or whatever color that mod uses) at the bottom of the post saying something like: "Moderator's note: this post was deemed to violate a community rule and was edited/deleted. Please refrain from [making personal putdowns or whatever rule was broken]." Sometimes the offending words are deleted and part of the post remains. Sometimes the whole content is deleted.

This creates a less obtrusive method of moderating that still allows other members to see that rules were upheld.

As for your example of a mod posting, "Another Yellow for you and that's a Red. Enjoy your week off" -- I feel that mods should behave professionally, just like referees, and I oppose mods saying sarcastic things like "Enjoy your week off."

If a soccer referee showed personal anger at the player who breaks the rules, I would feel that is inappropriate.

(3) I feel that the rule enforcement system Tore suggested that uses infraction points (and that apparently is built into vBulletin) is similar to your "verbal warning first, followed by Two Yellow Cards = Red Card" in that both systems will require tallying up of infractions....so I'm wondering if you would feel better about the infraction point system if a 3-point infraction were called a "Yellow Card" and a "Red Card" were equal to 10 infraction points?

For example, your suggestion that a Red Card could be given for a more grievous violation (by-passing the verbal warning and Yellow Cards) is similar to Tore's suggestion that breaking a minor rule would be given a 3 point infraction, and breaking a bigger rule would result in more infraction points right away.

(4) I feel that enforcing rules equally for all members regardless of their background at the site helps make enforcing rules easier and reduces "unfairness" arguments.

You wrote about a situation in which one well-behaved member (like me! ) finally loses it after being attacked frequently, and mouths off to someone ("you ****ing *******!!"). You suggested that she shouldn't get an infraction because she has normally been so well behaved.

I feel that fairness requires that she would get a 3-point infraction (or Yellow Card) also, just like the person who goaded her repeatedly with name-calling.

No one should be above the rules.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trollheart View Post
Also, I would like to take issue with your "I agree with Soulflower". If the mod is at fault for insulting her (and it was only a little one) is she then not also culpable for voicing the opinion that he should be fired? Is this not what tore is trying to bring in, and she an advocate of it: equal and equitable treatment for all, regardless of rank or longevity?
I feel that members of the community should be able to question the fairness of those in authority, and even say they feel the person in power should not be in power (a request for impeachment), without getting an infraction for expressing this viewpoint.

My reason is that I don't feel that the moderator power structure should be a dictatorship, so we have to be able to question their judgment and fitness for the volunteer position.

An issue, however, might be where, when, and how the request is made. If it is off topic in a thread about an unrelated issue, then that would be a concern.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trollheart View Post
could avatars be spray-painted yellow or red, or a yellow/red filter be used when they get infracted?
I mentioned this earlier, but I'll mention it again: I would strongly oppose such a visible emblem of someone's infraction status. I think such a color system would emphasize the notion of the MB community labeling and shaming "rule-breakers" rather than focusing on the behaviors themselves.

I believe that an infraction point system, like Tore recommends, allows moderators to see a member's accumulating infractions behind the scenes without that information being public, and I feel that is the best way. The person herself can disclose that publicly, if she wishes.

I DO, however, like the notion of courteous, impartial referees as the image for Musicbanter mods, Trollheart.

I think your football analogy (there, I conceded "football" makes more sense than "soccer") for enforcing rules at MB is great in that it evokes what I feel would be the perfect mod: a referee who is friendly, impartial, fair, and quick to point out courteously when rules have been broken:

__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neapolitan:
If a chicken was smart enough to be able to speak English and run in a geometric pattern, then I think it should be smart enough to dial 911 (999) before getting the axe, and scream to the operator, "Something must be done! Something must be done!"

Last edited by VEGANGELICA; 06-05-2015 at 08:30 PM.
VEGANGELICA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2015, 05:25 AM   #12 (permalink)
Born to be mild
 
Trollheart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: 404 Not Found
Posts: 26,971
Default

Let me just deal with your points Vegangelica, and then I'll make one or two more notes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by VEGANGELICA View Post
Trollheart, I copied your post from the Changes to Rule Enforcement thread and pasted it here to reply.

Although I do think the playfulness of Yellow and Red Cards is fun, and I agree that reminders of the rules in threads can be useful to inform people that moderation is happening, I have four main thoughts or concerns about your proposed system:

(1) I feel that giving people visible flags or some other visible sign that allows all members to see how many infractions that person has, such as the idea of coloring their avatars yellow or red, creates a feeling of a person being *shamed* publicly, which I oppose.
It kind of is to do this, which I do NOT oppose. If someone wants to disrupt things, insult people or flagrantly break the rules, why should they not be outed? After all, they're doing it in public; why not be punished, as it were, in public? Here we're obviously on different pages.
Quote:
Seeing people's avatars colored yellow or red, which you suggested, or listing their infractions in a thread, reminds me of the notion of slapping a Scarlet A on someone, which I dislike.
It could have that effect, but it is more so that any mod seeing that person misbehave will know they are already on a Yellow. It happens in footy: the player's name comes up onscreen with a yellow icon, and you know it he tries it on again he's in trouble. This is mostly to address I think it was tore's question as to how mods would know or be able to keep track of people on infractions. If you have a better idea of how to do this do let me know, but I think something like this gives a nice visual aid. It also has the added bonus of reminding the member they had better watch their step.
Quote:
(2) I feel, like Tore (and I) said earlier, that making moderation only subtly apparent, or not apparent at all, in threads is good for the overall flow of conversations and will be less likely to inflame drama.
If moderation is done well (and it almost always is) then yes, but people here, some of them anyway, seem to believe that's not being done, or that people are being victimised or singled out. A public reprimand would show conclusively that this was not the case, and in addition, unless a mod deletes the post it's there forever for all to see, refer back to and check on.
Quote:
However, I agree with you that it IS nice to know that rules are being upheld and what sorts of posts are deemed as breaking the rules.
Which is something you can't have without public warnings, unless the mods wanted to publish a list of offenders, which is probably worse than what you have a problem with in my system.
Quote:
What I've seen moderators do that I really like is go into a post that violates a rule and make a note (in red or whatever color that mod uses) at the bottom of the post saying something like: "Moderator's note: this post was deemed to violate a community rule and was edited/deleted. Please refrain from [making personal putdowns or whatever rule was broken]." Sometimes the offending words are deleted and part of the post remains. Sometimes the whole content is deleted.

This creates a less obtrusive method of moderating that still allows other members to see that rules were upheld.
Sounds like that's more work for them. Instead of one post they have to edit/delete a post and then put a note in saying what they did, each time. Again, this is up to mods as to which they would prefer, if either.
Quote:
As for your example of a mod posting, "Another Yellow for you and that's a Red. Enjoy your week off" -- I feel that mods should behave professionally, just like referees, and I oppose mods saying sarcastic things like "Enjoy your week off."

If a soccer referee showed personal anger at the player who breaks the rules, I would feel that is inappropriate.
No, this I do not agree with at all. Mods are people and people have emotions. I would not want a standard like "Infraction given. You are banned" or whatever. That seems to me very robotic and impersonal. I noted the comment above because it was actually used by a mod, and I don't see any problem with it. After all, it's the fact the person has been banned that's important, isn't it, not how they're told? I think a bit of humour in a ban is helpful: "See you in a week", "Don't forget to write", "Now you can catch up on all that other stuff you have to do!" etc.
Quote:
(3) I feel that the rule enforcement system Tore suggested that uses infraction points (and that apparently is built into vBulletin) is similar to your "verbal warning first, followed by Two Yellow Cards = Red Card" in that both systems will require tallying up of infractions....so I'm wondering if you would feel better about the infraction point system if a 3-point infraction were called a "Yellow Card" and a "Red Card" were equal to 10 infraction points?
They're similar yes, but tore wants to use automatic infraction. I don't, preferring to leave it to the mods' discretion, much as it is now.

Quote:

(4) I feel that enforcing rules equally for all members regardless of their background at the site helps make enforcing rules easier and reduces "unfairness" arguments.

You wrote about a situation in which one well-behaved member (like me! ) finally loses it after being attacked frequently, and mouths off to someone ("you ****ing *******!!"). You suggested that she shouldn't get an infraction because she has normally been so well behaved.

I feel that fairness requires that she would get a 3-point infraction (or Yellow Card) also, just like the person who goaded her repeatedly with name-calling.

No one should be above the rules.
No one should be above them, no, but those who follow them should be given more of a chance. If you like, it's similar to a court giving a lesser, or suspended sentence to a "first offence".
Quote:
I feel that members of the community should be able to question the fairness of those in authority, and even say they feel the person in power should not be in power (a request for impeachment), without getting an infraction for expressing this viewpoint.

My reason is that I don't feel that the moderator power structure should be a dictatorship, so we have to be able to question their judgment and fitness for the volunteer position.
I'm addressing that below again, but I have already said that Red Cards could be appealed, though the appeal may not always be successful. In my system however such appeals should be very infrequent, as there would be, as it were, a commentary or timeline of the offence for all to see, and to decide as to whether or not it was a fair infraction.
Quote:
An issue, however, might be where, when, and how the request is made. If it is off topic in a thread about an unrelated issue, then that would be a concern.
Either in a special "Appeal thread" or by PM would be my choice. I would not want people following mods around into all sorts of threads saying "This Red Card! I want to appeal it!" That would never work.
Quote:
I mentioned this earlier, but I'll mention it again: I would strongly oppose such a visible emblem of someone's infraction status. I think such a color system would emphasize the notion of the MB community labeling and shaming "rule-breakers" rather than focusing on the behaviors themselves.

I believe that an infraction point system, like Tore recommends, allows moderators to see a member's accumulating infractions behind the scenes without that information being public, and I feel that is the best way. The person herself can disclose that publicly, if she wishes.
I'm not sure why you're making exactly the same point again, but I have addressed this already.
Quote:
I DO, however, like the notion of courteous, impartial referees as the image for Musicbanter mods, Trollheart.

I think your football analogy (there, I conceded "football" makes more sense than "soccer") for enforcing rules at MB is great in that it evokes what I feel would be the perfect mod: a referee who is friendly, impartial, fair, and quick to point out courteously when rules have been broken:

This is my hope, my plan and the thinking behind this system.

APPEALING A RED CARD

Yellow Cards would not be open to appeal, as they result in nothing more than a warning and a move towards a Red. Red Cards could be appealed, but I would suggest that each member has a certain number of appeals per year, maybe three, to stop every Red Card being appealed and a flood of requests drowning mods.

On another note: I would like if nobody objects to now make a new poll, a simple one which asks for a simple answer:
Do you support tore's system
Do you support Trollheart's system
Do you think a system is even needed
Are you unsure and need further debate?

This has gone on long enough, in both threads, and I'm tired wasting time on it as I'm sure most of us are. We need to know what the result of this is going to be.

I'll make that thread within two hours if nobody says anything to the contrary.
Thanks
__________________
Trollheart: Signature-free since April 2018
Trollheart is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Similar Threads



© 2003-2024 Advameg, Inc.