How Should MB Be Moderated?

**Exo** · 06-09-2015, 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ki

Sorry. I didn't mean to say I've gotten infractions. Just saying that if I ever do for acting the way I do, I'll gladly take em. Can't say I'll learn anything if I do get them though.

That's what I meant too. "Sucks to your infractions" was a reference to infractions in general.

DwnWthVwls · 06-09-2015, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trollheart

Drama does not equal fun nor the other way around. People know when to stop and you can't have everything serious all the time. Many of my threads have been derailed, it's just how it is. Unless the topic is ultra-serious, in which case off-topic posts should definitely be discouraged. We're heading back to Military School again, are we?

That happened in someone's journal, basically a battle of the GIFs. I asked it be stopped, and it was. It's not rocket science. If you stay silent then you're only contributing to the problem. Say your piece and be heard, that's how adults do it. Can't see a problem with that.

When I said drama/"having fun", I was speaking on two different things. Just like meme/gif/emoticon is three different things.

Key · 06-09-2015, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DwnWthVwls

When I said drama/"having fun", I was speaking on two different things. Just like meme/gif/emoticon is three different things.

And like when you said "ki, you're an *******" but what you really mean is "ki, i love you, you're cool". Right? RIGHT?!

Guybrush · 06-09-2015, 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Exo_

You can keep going Tore. The people who are having the discussions can keep going. I'm just saying that it seems like the sail is losing a lot of wind and nobody seems to notice on the side of Tore.

Don't believe me? Hell, look at the votes. Look at my votes. I side with Tore on a lot of issues. It's just that this whole thing is just too much. There was never a real issue to begin with and these huge polls are just breathing fire on a match trying to turn it into a torch. It's never been a torch. It never will be.

Thanks for noticing that my views are not really that extreme. I think I am relatively moderate in what I want from a forum. I have noticed that my suggestion to use the infractions system has lost wind. That was apparent from the old poll.

The poll, by the way, isn't just me. The first poll was called for by Roxy, I believe. This more detailed poll was initially suggested by Freebase in a post that criticized the first poll.

I'm just trying to get it right.

**Goofle** · 06-09-2015, 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trollheart

I woudl think the amount of posts considered offensive would be very small. Members (not spammers) are seldom actually offensive in my experience.

I completely agree, which is exactly why those posts need to be reported.

Key · 06-09-2015, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Goofle

I completely agree, which is exactly why those posts need to be reported.

So any post that is jokingly offensive to another member even when the other members know it's a joke should be reported?

**Goofle** · 06-09-2015, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ki

So any post that is jokingly offensive to another member even when the other members know it's a joke should be reported?

What do you think?

Key · 06-09-2015, 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Goofle

What do you think?

I'm hoping that's a "no" but with how things are going in these threads, the answer can be anything

Guybrush · 06-09-2015, 04:35 PM

If anyone's interested, here's what I voted :

1A. The rules should be applied equally to all members (ex. rules apply equally to mods and users)

To ensure fairness, rules should apply equally to all. For example, if someone breaks a rule, whether they are a mod, member or newbie shouldn't factor into punishment. If someone breaks a rule, they should be punished for what they did and not for who they are.

2A. Rules should apply equally to all forums

Whether you use a three strike rule or infractions, these are basically systems that give you some leeway or warning before consequences get serious, so I think that could give enough leeway that a safe zone is not required. On a more strict board, I might be for, but I can't see MB getting too strict for me - at least not with the current climate.

3B. Outside safe zones, mod policy should discourage short, nonsense posts

I think infractions should be consistently used to discourage short, nonsense posts.

5C. Details of rule enforcement can be subject to public scrutiny

Another way to ensure fairness.

6A. For punishment, there should be a general policy to use temporary infractions

Full on infractions policy looks so sweet on paper. I would love to see it tried out on MB in a full scale experiment or implementation. It automates the most difficult things about a moderators job (like banning users and keeping tabs on their post/punishment history) and I think it would be much more effective at modifying behaviour on the large scale than what we're currently doing.

7B. For rule enforcement, moderators should use their personal accounts

I like transparency and that's hard to preserve if moderators use an anonymous mod account to punish users. To ensure transparency then, people would have to keep record of what they do when they're on that account. Mods would also have to log in and out of this account and their personal account.

It just sounds like something that is not transparent, could be abused and would become fiddly/tedious to mods.

There are some arguments for as well, but not enough to make implementation seem like a good idea to me.

8B. A new moderation policy should NOT have a trial run first (implemented immediately)

When I answered this, I was thinking about my own proposal to use infractions. I am not really opposed to a trial period as such, but I think the idea's good enough to implement straight away. I think a trial period would have to be rather long to give a good, representative idea of what forum life under a new policy really would be like.

9A. The mod team should be bolstered with additional mods.

I think there are too few mods at the moment.

Whether the current mod team should be retained or not, I don't really have a strong opinion about, so I left both options C and D out.

**Goofle** · 06-09-2015, 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ki

I'm hoping that's a "no" but with how things are going in these threads, the answer can be anything

Come on man.

View Poll Results: Which statements do you agree the most with? (public poll)
1A. The rules should be applied equally to all members (ex. rules apply equally to mods and users)	15	60.00%
1B. The rules should NOT be applied equally to all members (ex. mods more lenient with regualrs)	8	32.00%
2A. Rules should apply equally to all forums	7	28.00%
2B. Rules should NOT apply equally to all forums (ex. "Safe Zones" less strict)	18	72.00%
3A. Outside safe zones, mod policy should allow for short, nonsense posts	10	40.00%
3B. Outside safe zones, mod policy should discourage short, nonsense posts	13	52.00%
3C. Outside safe zones, mod policy should prohibit short, nonsense posts	2	8.00%
4A. General mod policy should be to react to every instance where a rule is broken	10	40.00%
4B. General mod policy should allow for mods NOT to react to an instance where a rule is broken	15	60.00%
5A. Details of rule enforcement is ultimately between a mod and a user	7	28.00%
5B. Details of rule enforcement can ulimately be subject to other mods scrutiny	4	16.00%
5C. Details of rule enforcement can be subject to public scrutiny	16	64.00%
6A. For punishment, there should be a general policy to use temporary infractions	5	20.00%
6B. For punishment, there should be a general policy to use warnings, infractions / bans	16	64.00%
6C. There should be no general policy for how punishment is carried out	7	28.00%
7A. For rule enforcement, moderators should use a joint, anonymous account	4	16.00%
7B. For rule enforcement, moderators should use their personal accounts	21	84.00%
8A. A new moderation policy should have a trial run first (ex. 1 - 2 months)	18	72.00%
8B. A new moderation policy should NOT have a trial run first (implemented immediately)	5	20.00%
9A. The mod team should be bolstered with additional mods.	13	52.00%
9B. The mod team should NOT be bolstered with additional mods.	6	24.00%
9C. The current mod team should be retained.	17	68.00%
9D. Some or all of the current moderators should be replaced.	6	24.00%
10. Some of my concerns are not listed in the individual items, but I will voice them in a reply.	5	20.00%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 25. You may not vote on this poll

06-09-2015, 04:35 PM	#79 (permalink)
Guybrush Juicious Maximus III Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Scabb Island Posts: 6,525	If anyone's interested, here's what I voted : 1A. The rules should be applied equally to all members (ex. rules apply equally to mods and users) To ensure fairness, rules should apply equally to all. For example, if someone breaks a rule, whether they are a mod, member or newbie shouldn't factor into punishment. If someone breaks a rule, they should be punished for what they did and not for who they are. 2A. Rules should apply equally to all forums Whether you use a three strike rule or infractions, these are basically systems that give you some leeway or warning before consequences get serious, so I think that could give enough leeway that a safe zone is not required. On a more strict board, I might be for, but I can't see MB getting too strict for me - at least not with the current climate. 3B. Outside safe zones, mod policy should discourage short, nonsense posts I think infractions should be consistently used to discourage short, nonsense posts. 5C. Details of rule enforcement can be subject to public scrutiny Another way to ensure fairness. 6A. For punishment, there should be a general policy to use temporary infractions Full on infractions policy looks so sweet on paper. I would love to see it tried out on MB in a full scale experiment or implementation. It automates the most difficult things about a moderators job (like banning users and keeping tabs on their post/punishment history) and I think it would be much more effective at modifying behaviour on the large scale than what we're currently doing. 7B. For rule enforcement, moderators should use their personal accounts I like transparency and that's hard to preserve if moderators use an anonymous mod account to punish users. To ensure transparency then, people would have to keep record of what they do when they're on that account. Mods would also have to log in and out of this account and their personal account. It just sounds like something that is not transparent, could be abused and would become fiddly/tedious to mods. There are some arguments for as well, but not enough to make implementation seem like a good idea to me. 8B. A new moderation policy should NOT have a trial run first (implemented immediately) When I answered this, I was thinking about my own proposal to use infractions. I am not really opposed to a trial period as such, but I think the idea's good enough to implement straight away. I think a trial period would have to be rather long to give a good, representative idea of what forum life under a new policy really would be like. 9A. The mod team should be bolstered with additional mods. I think there are too few mods at the moment. Whether the current mod team should be retained or not, I don't really have a strong opinion about, so I left both options C and D out. __________________ Something Completely Different Last edited by Guybrush; 06-09-2015 at 04:41 PM.