Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 61 to 66 of 66

Thread: Moderation Guidelines (20/09/2008)

  1. #61
    Systems Administrator
    Nadiar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    16,168
    Blog Entries
    9

    Re: Moderation Guidelines (20/09/2008)

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarbonius View Post
    If full disclosure of all mod actions (including even just sending a PM in response to a report) is desired, it seems that it would be pretty easy to simply make a publicly viewable copy of report threads with the name of the original reporter stripped out. I'm assuming that even if a report is deemed unworthy of action, then a note is posted to the report thread by the mod who handles it (eg. "no action taken - PM sent to X explaining why"). Voila - reports are still private, mod decisions are public.

    It would probably be a fair bit of overhead work, but I honestly don't know how many posts are reported in a given day, so I'm not sure if this would be workable or not.
    Do you honestly think people wouldn't be responding to a thread with the information stripped out with things like "it was so-and-so, wasn't it? I can tell by the writing!"

  2. #62
    Entropy happens
    Zarbonius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    3,544

    Re: Moderation Guidelines (20/09/2008)

    /shrug, I dunno.

    The few times I've reported threads, my comments have usually been something along the lines of:

    "Post X looks like it's a violation of rule Y". Occasionally, I'll go into a little more detail, but nothing more than a couple of sentences. If people can figure out who I am from that, well more power to them, I suppose.

    Besides, if people *know* that their reports are going to be made public (without their names), I'm pretty sure they'd be a little more brief with their reports, minimizing the chances that they'd be identified by their writing style.

  3. #63
    Ancient Arcanist
    Destructis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    19,546

    Re: Moderation Guidelines (20/09/2008)

    Common sense meet thread, thread meet common sense. Its sounds like you guys need to be introduced.

    The only times a mod will vote is on a suspension/banning or on a rule. Yes a thread will have been reported, but if it's bad enough for a vote on a banning or suspension, then it will be quite obvious that what someone did was so bad that even if it wasn't reported it would need to be handled.

    Making that report public has nothing to do with that vote.

  4. #64
    Lord Inquisitor Lenin
    Eamin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    27,799

    Re: Moderation Guidelines (20/09/2008)

    There was a vote, Claud, and the vast majority of posters voted to keep reports private.
    Not quite. The majority of posters voted to keep reports private by default, whether mods could make reports public on an individual basis was not addressed in that poll.

  5. #65
    Elder Arcanist
    Layonya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    4,607

    Re: Moderation Guidelines (20/09/2008)

    Close enough for government work, imo.

  6. #66
    Elder Arcanist
    Maledict's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    10,808

    Re: Moderation Guidelines (20/09/2008)

    Bumping this because I think the moderation guidelines need looking at. Some of the timescales etc. don't really make much sense here, and the scale of response seems out of line. My personal preference would be for civility rule moderation to be:

    - first infraction, PM from a mod and editing of post if necessery
    - second action in a month timespan is a formal warning (note goes in the forum above here)
    - third action within a month of the second is a suspension for 3 days, then ratcheting up a week, then a month etc.

    No moving of posts to rants, just remove the comment / and or post and keep the above guidelines. The current timespan is 7 days but goes straight to a suspension for a week if you infract twice, and that doesn't require the formal warning to be used which is confusing and can side-step some of the lock ins we have with regards to moderation. (i.e. a mod can suspend someone without anything public ever happening in the moderation forum above - whereas I feel someone should ALWAYs get at least a formal public wanring before actual suspension).

    For posts falling under rules 1 to 4 I would hesitate to use guidelines, only to state that as always mods should try to preserve any relevant discussion going on and respond appropriately and proportionately. One post would result in the post removal and a formal warning, attack of the killer goats of the internet and their demented, game beta-stealing leader would result in a suspension whilst goat-free service was restored.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •