Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 66

Thread: Moderation Guidelines (20/09/2008)

  1. #1
    Passes Turing Test
    Voca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    6,333

    Moderation Guidelines (20/09/2008)

    Moderation Guidelines

    In order to prevent disruption to the boards rules 1-3 will be actively enforced. Moderators may also move misplaced posts to more appropriate locations.

    Moderation falling under the other rules is reactively enforced in response to reports. When reading reports Moderators should ask themselves whether a reasonable person (in the legal sense) would view the behaviour as a violation of the rules.

    With regard to the Civility rule, both posters and moderators should keep in mind that disagreement is not tantamount to incivility. Graffe's games forums are often host to vigorous arguments about the merits and demerits of various games and game systems, and OT hosts debate on many important and sensitive subjects, including the big two of politics and morality. The rule specifies minimal civility: where in doubt posts should be allowed to stand.

    When at all possible post content should be preserved. Posts in violation of the Civility rule should not be deleted but should be moved to rants. In other non-spam cases post editing is preferred to post deletion, unless of course the post is entirely composed of a violation.

    Moderation of non-spam posts should be accompanied by a brief explanation of the reason for the moderation. Posters should keep in mind that moderators are volunteers and do not have time to produce comprehensive arguments justifying each of their moderation decisions. Edited posts should indicate what rule edited material violated.

    Threads which are inappropriate for the forum in which they are located should generally be moved to a more suitable forum.

    Moderators and administrators are not exempt from the rules.

    Moderators, Administrators, and others granted access to forum features or message boards not granted by default are prohibited from sharing account access.

    Warnings, suspensions, bannings:

    Initial violations of the rules will be responded to by post editing/or moving as appropriate and an informal request to the poster to refrain.

    A poster who violates any of rules 1-4, or 6 more than once in a 7 day period will be suspended for a period of one week.

    A poster who violates rule 5 more than twice in a twenty-four hour period will receive a formal warning and a public thread will be created in the moderation forum detailing the basis for the warning.

    A poster who receives more than one formal warning within a 7 day period will be suspended for one week.

    A poster who attempts to bypass a suspension by posting with an alternate account will have their suspension extended by an additional week.

    If a moderator feels a poster's actions warrant a suspension but the reasons do not fall under the above conditions (e.g. A poster continually skirting the 7 day rule by provoking a warning every 8 days, or a perceived need for a suspension longer than a week.) a thread will be started in the public moderation forum detailing the case for suspension and the moderators will vote after the community has had a chance to give feedback. The decision of the majority will be binding.

    Obvious spam accounts will be automatically banned.

    If a moderator believes that a poster's actions warrant a permanent ban a thread will be started in the public moderation forum detailing the case for suspension and the moderators will vote after the community has had a chance to give feedback. The decision to ban must be unanimous.
    Last edited by Voca; March 24th, 2009 at 12:35 PM.
    "Computer science is a continuation of logic by other means" -- Georg Gottlob

    www.Neutrality.ca

  2. #2
    Elder Arcanist
    Maledict's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    10,808

    Re: Moderation Guidelines (20/09/2008)

    As an ammendum to this.

    It is not allowed to reveal the identity of posters reports.

    Reports are private for a reason, and although we do get some silly ones, the mod team just deals with it appropriately. Every time the board has been asked, the majority want reports to remain private, so this is the guidelines the mod team works within.
    Last edited by Maledict; October 18th, 2009 at 07:07 AM.

  3. #3
    D E N I E D !
    ClaudShatterglass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    10,915
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Moderation Guidelines (20/09/2008)

    Do you have any prior history that you'd like to direct us to, or are you unilaterally imposing this and asking us to trust you? If I am not mistaken, there are absolutely no provisions in either the guidelines or the forum rules which allow one moderator to impose guidelines upon another moderator, regardless of "lead" status.

    If you believe the community supports it, then perhaps it should be placed to a vote instead of unilaterally imposed on an act of faith. That is, if we are running a democratic society that gets to choose and debate the rules they live under.

  4. #4
    Elder Arcanist
    Maledict's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    10,808

    Re: Moderation Guidelines (20/09/2008)

    There are no provisions stating a ton of things. The fact that the entire community knows this is the case, and the fact that it is one of the reasons Dmitry was suspended as a mod, should be the clue. I shouldn't have to spell out every single detail of every prohibited and allowed action, but apparently we have to. This is one of the things the current mod team operates under. If you want it changed, then you have the same opportunies available as every other poster - this forum, a poll, etc. Every other time this issue has come up, the majority of people wanted reports private, so that's how we do things. There hasn't been a change since then, and we just assume that folks know this.

    We've had the debate over public versus private reports many times - this isn't one of those things where, after 6 months, you can just ignore what folks said last time around. If you want it changed, then I would suggest doing what everyone else does. We don't get to ignore what people said on a selective basis just because we don't like it. We didn't put it specifically in the rules because, along with "Mods can't use IP address knowledge to steal woW accounts", it's an implicit thing. That's why that forum is private! Clearly, we should of put it in because using knowledge no-one else has access to to attack posters in the rants forum is definitely something everyone wants the mod team doing.
    Last edited by Maledict; October 18th, 2009 at 08:00 AM.

  5. #5
    Elder Arcanist
    Maledict's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    10,808

    Re: Moderation Guidelines (20/09/2008)

    Oh, and for reference, this is something that is in place and has been for some time.

    http://www.graffe.com/forums/showthread.php?t=63261

    Was the last time this issue was addressed, and Voca kept the rule about keeping reports private.

  6. #6
    D E N I E D !
    ClaudShatterglass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    10,915
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Moderation Guidelines (20/09/2008)

    Quote Originally Posted by Maledict
    We didn't put it specifically in the rules because, along with "Mods can't use IP address knowledge to steal woW accounts", it's an implicit thing.
    If you want to have a society of rules and regulations, then you can't say that there are 'implicit' rules. Either they are rules or they aren't. That's what this discussion is about. The IP stuff isn't in the guidelines or rules, and that's probably a really bad example to be directing me to, especially as it has been a problem in the past. None of these are "unanticipated situations", which we have provisions for, it's just stuff people haven't done. Take last week; we hadn't expected to have to deal with posters threatening lawsuits against the site. The issue was handled under the unanticipated provisions, and now we have guidelines for it.

    Now- having not been done before doesn't exclude something from being done in the future. Publishing reports has done before, so it's not like this is a new problem we're dealing with; if we have faith in our ruleset, why is this only being added now, in response to an old problem, by a unilateral decision of one moderator?

    This isn't, at least for me, a discussion over whether I get to post report info publicly. That's tangent to the situation. This is about how, for all the hoo-rah about moderator guidelines and forum rules, they get discarded the instant it's inconvenient. When I ran, I thought the problem was that people were slavish to the guidelines, and I was dead wrong on that. The problem is that there is an impression that there are moderators who are slavish to the guidelines. (I don't and can't lump all us moderators into one group; there are some who I wouldn't apply that statement to, some who deserve it, and some who deserve it but 'slavish" is the wrong word. It gets complicated.)

    And for the love of God, would people stop bringing up Dmitry every time they need a boogeyman? I appreciate that you've gone from "that was the reason why Dmitry was de-modded" to "that was one of the reasons why Dmitry was de-modded"; it still doesn't tell anything close to the real story, but at least it's technically accurate. It seems that every time someone wants to talk about a mod doing something they don't like, they bring up Dmitry, attach it to that person, and say "evil! evil!"

    As far as publishing reports goes, my opinion is that I'm fine either way it goes. I don't really think we should have private mod forums in the first place, but that's another battle for another day. I'd rather not, however, have people preach rules and regulations to me on one hand while referencing the "implicit rules" on the other.
    Last edited by ClaudShatterglass; October 18th, 2009 at 08:41 AM.

  7. #7
    Elder Arcanist
    Layonya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    4,607

    Re: Moderation Guidelines (20/09/2008)

    If you believe the community supports it, then perhaps it should be placed to a vote instead of unilaterally imposed on an act of faith.
    There was a vote, Claud, and the vast majority of posters voted to keep reports private.

  8. #8
    Elder Arcanist
    Maledict's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    10,808

    Re: Moderation Guidelines (20/09/2008)

    Fundamentally Claud, moderators shouldn't be using the contents of private reports to attack posters publicly because they don't like them. Talk about a society of rules all you want, but it absolutely sucks that you think it fair that a moderator should be able to use private information to attack otherss publicly. I've tried to reason with you about this, but you seem intent on turning a very obvious point into a discussion on the broader way we work, hence me having to post this.

    It wasn't in the ruleset for the same reason I can't use the mod system to find out someone's RL address and then mail them a dead squirrel to their house. It's something so blindingly obvious we haven't spelt it out, but clearly we have to. If you think reports should be made public, then say so - but under no circumstances is it fair that reports are private unless Claud wants to attack someone, in which case you get to reveal whatever you want. That's a ridiculously unfair stance. That's not making reports public, it's just abusing information you have to attack folks you don't like. We are expected to keep stuff confidential - we don't just get to reveal it because it's not in the guidelines. I know who Snuffleupagus is, and I don't really like his posts, but I'm not going to tell folks "because it's not in the guidelines".

    Talk about the difference between rules and guidelines all you want, but you cannot escape the fact you keep doing this to attack posters you don't like, and that's simply unfair and hypocritical. I asked you weeks ago to not do it, you completely ignored me, and then this again. This isn't a broader issue, it's a simple fact that you keep doing something you shouldn't do and instead of engaging on any level with people about it, you write it off as "maledict's whim" or Mdar's "rules and orders" and then make a bruhaha about rules versus regulations and how unfair it all is. I wouldn't have posted this at all apart from the fact you told me you were going to keep on doing it and would ignore anything I said about it as it wasn't in the guidelines. I don't like disagreeing with other mods full stop, never mind publicly, but you've alreay made your opinions very clear on that. Fundamentally, you are wrong, so deal with it instead of trying to twist it into something else.
    Last edited by Maledict; October 18th, 2009 at 09:02 AM.

  9. #9
    D E N I E D !
    ClaudShatterglass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    10,915
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Moderation Guidelines (20/09/2008)

    Quote Originally Posted by Maledict View Post
    Fundamentally Claud, moderators shouldn't be using the contents of private reports to attack posters publicly because they don't like them.
    You little showboating bullshitter. You know that isn't what this about, and I made that quite clear to you privately. All I have to say on that point.
    Talk about a society of rules all you want, but it absolutely sucks that you think it fair that a moderator should be able to use private information to attack others spublicly. I've tried to reason with you about this , but you seem intent on turning a very obvious point into a discussion on the broader way we work, hence this ammendment.
    I'd publish that report information differently than I did in the future, but I can't deny the effect. Ibliss threw a tantrum, Kaelon pretty much said "ok, you're right", and dropped it. I'd do things differently in the future, but I'd keep the same basic action.

    The broader discussion of the way we work is directly related to how this situation was handled. I'm not about to say "ok, I agree with you on that, and even though I find the way it was handled to be a complete farce, I'll keep silent for the sake of the minor point." Your "trying to reason" with me has consisted of you telling me "this is the way we run things". Remember when I said after the elections I had my own concerns that your idea of "healthy disagreement" consisted of eventually going along with what you had to say? You are not assuaging me of that impression.

    It wasn't in the ruleset for the same reason I can't use the mod system to find out someone's RL address and then mail them a dead squirrel to their house. It's something so blindingly obvious we haven't spelt it out, but clearly we have to. If you think reports should be made public, then say so - but under no circumstances is it fair that reports are private unless Claud wants to attack someone, in which case you get to reveal whatever you want. That's a ridiculously unfair stance.
    Again, you know this has *nothing* to do with me wanting to attack someone. It turned into a back-and-forth in the rants forum, which I regret, but has nothing to do with if I like or don't like Ibliss. You already knew this, but now you're going with out-and-out bullshit, publicly instead of privately this time, because you have no response under the guidelines or forum rules which cover this precedented situation, and you don't want to be honest with people and say "yes, we're autocratic, and we operate according to hidden guidelines."

    You want to talk about being insulted, spare me. We've already hashed out half of this privately, and now you're throwing out accusations you know to be false, but go ahead and say publicly anyways. At least I believe in what I'm saying.

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

    Re: Moderation Guidelines (20/09/2008)

    We haven't hashed anything out privately. Stop pretending this is something other than it is, because you were wrong and don't like facing up to that fact. You cannot run away from what you have actually been doing - that's a nonsensical stance to take. I stuck the ammendment up there specifically because you said "there's nothing in the guidelines about it therefore it's fine!". You gave me the choice of either doing nothing when I know it's wrong, or having to spell out something that was already up on the boards and everyone else knows. This wouldn't of been necessery at all had you not repeatedly done something we don't do as mods, ignored what everyone else said on the issue, then continued to do it.

    Stop running away from what you actually did. And don't pretend we "hashed this out privately" - I stopped replying to you after you told me you were ignoring anything I said and was running the entire board how I felt like it. You accuse me of showboating, but you're the one causing the drama, and your the one doing something that everyone else is saying shouldn't be done. This is not how you make points or influence people, it's just how you cause fights and disagreements that never get resolved.

    I'm not interested in word games of "autocratic versus democracy", or whatever else you like discussing. What I'm interested in is someone whose ignoring what everyone else is saying, using private mod information to attack people, and who feels it's perfectly fair. You can discuss society's and rules and government styles anywhere you want, you don't have to go through this to get that. Mods are not suppossed to be abusing the system they run just to try and prove a point, whatever that point is. Mods shouldn't be the cause of the boards drama.
    Last edited by Maledict; October 18th, 2009 at 09:15 AM.

  11. #11
    D E N I E D !
    ClaudShatterglass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    10,915
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Moderation Guidelines (20/09/2008)

    I haven't "ran away" from anything. I said what I did, said why I did it, and said in which ways I feel I messed it up and which ways I thought I nailed. You're just expecting me to go "aw, I'm sorry, /shameface." You've hit disagreement, and the second I challenged your authority to make certain calls privately, you took the discussion public. That was your choice. If disagreeing with you "causes drama" in your eyes, then I'm quite fine with causing drama in your eyes. At no point in that discussion did I say or imply I was ignoring what you had to say; I said that I disagreed with your logic and was unconvinced by your argument. The closest I came was that I was ignoring your authority to make a call, because you could not support your authority to make that call. It was your decision to take this private discussion public because of a disagreement. Don't forget that.

    "Everyone" thus far consists of you and Mdar. Much like "this is why Dmitry was suspended", you're exaggerating the facts behind your argument. I'm willing to concede that the majority of board opinion is against the idea of making reports public, and even I think that most shouldn't. But considering all the other silly shit that's in the guidelines, why would something this obvious and precedented, multiple times, not be in there?

    Call it word games or whatever; I don't like applying labels myself, but there ideas that need to be expressed, and that's why we have those labels. We'll have to do that, I'm afraid, so long as we keep insisting that we have faith in our rules/guidelines, but keep referring to some set of "implicit" rules.

  12. #12
    Forum Sorcerer

    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    830

    Re: Moderation Guidelines (20/09/2008)

    Um...there have been votes. For God's sake, there have been like THREE votes on this, and EVERY time making reports public has been shot down, HARD.

    It is obvious the majority of the board wants reports to remain private. This means not only do they remain private, but that moderators with an axe to grind cannot turn around and make them public by stating in another thread who reported what.

    But by all means, put it up for a vote AGAIN. I'll chuckle when 75% of the board votes no, AGAIN.

    Some people obviously have very short memories.
    The more I learn the more I realize I have yet to learn.

  13. #13
    Entropy happens
    Zarbonius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    3,555

    Re: Moderation Guidelines (20/09/2008)

    Quote Originally Posted by ClaudShatterglass View Post
    I'm willing to concede that the majority of board opinion is against the idea of making reports public, and even I think that most shouldn't. But considering all the other silly shit that's in the guidelines, why would something this obvious and precedented, multiple times, not be in there?

    Call it word games or whatever; I don't like applying labels myself, but there ideas that need to be expressed, and that's why we have those labels. We'll have to do that, I'm afraid, so long as we keep insisting that we have faith in our rules/guidelines, but keep referring to some set of "implicit" rules.
    I don't understand your position, Claud. You don't like "implicit" rules, so now that Maledict is making this "guideline" explicit, you're... objecting?

  14. #14
    Check the
    Track Record
    Grindel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    39,067
    Blog Entries
    13

    Re: Moderation Guidelines (20/09/2008)

    Man, are people just bored today or something? My car could use washing if that's the case.

  15. #15
    Limited Access

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    9,401
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Moderation Guidelines (20/09/2008)

    Quote Originally Posted by Grindel View Post
    Man, are people just bored today or something? My car could use washing if that's the case.
    Screw your car, I have laundry needing done.
    Ikeya: Lies. You moderate with oppressive bias.
    Rombus: man if that were only true
    Rombus: i would have banned claud 8 times over


    Ikeya|Laptop has left irc.stratics.com (Quit: DIAF, Nadiar!)
    <lowkey> haha
    <lowkey> is it just random who ikeya is hating on?
    <vdou|work> if he's lookin at something , he's hatin on it


    <vdou|work> its a given that anything with 'intelli-' as a prefix for the product's name is going to be more than a little retarded
    <xilet`> normally extra chromosome

  16. #16
    D E N I E D !
    ClaudShatterglass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    10,915
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Moderation Guidelines (20/09/2008)

    Quote Originally Posted by Arinath View Post
    Um...there have been votes. For God's sake, there have been like THREE votes on this, and EVERY time making reports public has been shot down, HARD.

    It is obvious the majority of the board wants reports to remain private. This means not only do they remain private, but that moderators with an axe to grind cannot turn around and make them public by stating in another thread who reported what.

    But by all means, put it up for a vote AGAIN. I'll chuckle when 75% of the board votes no, AGAIN.

    Some people obviously have very short memories.
    I already conceded that, when you put it in absolutely bald yes or no terms, the board is in the aggregate against publishing report information. I already said that I'd be fine with not being able to publish reports, and that the reason why I did it had nothing to do with grinding an axe, but achieving an effect which was absolutely achieved. All of this information is in the posts immediately preceding yours.
    Quote Originally Posted by Zarbonius
    I don't understand your position, Claud. You don't like "implicit" rules, so now that Maledict is making this "guideline" explicit, you're... objecting?
    Allow me to clarify. During my election, I said I'd use the moderator guidelines and forum rules as well-meant suggestions, as opposed to tablets handed down from on-high. I took a lot of crap for that, as I pretty much expected and can't really blame anyone for. Once I was actually elected, however, I gave the forum rules and moderator guidelines a serious look, and realized that I could change what I thought needed to be changed about moderation without straying one ince outside of them.

    However, it seems half the times when I do, I get told about the "implicit" guidelines. I'm upset at the lack of honesty from moderation towards the rest of the collective board; being a moderator and being privy to those hidden forums has hardened my belief that the rules on this forum are ultimately meaningless. The decisions are ultimately handed down, and the rules are crafted or handled to fit those decisions. I don't and can't, again, apply that equally to each individual moderator. We've got some true believers, some true cynics, and all the shades in between.

    And I'd be fine with someone handing down decisions here, if we'd be honest and say that's the way we're running the show! Hell, that's the way I'd like things to run! But I don't want to bullshit people while I do that and pretend I'm living under a society of published rules open to discussion so long as there's this "implicit ruleset" I keep getting nagged about.

  17. #17
    Formerly: Baelan Shadowbane
    Mad Vizier
    Devil Dog
    Ninetoes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    24,264

    Re: Moderation Guidelines (20/09/2008)

    Quote Originally Posted by ClaudShatterglass View Post
    "Everyone" thus far consists of you and Mdar. Much like "this is why Dmitry was suspended", you're exaggerating the facts behind your argument. I'm willing to concede that the majority of board opinion is against the idea of making reports public, and even I think that most shouldn't. But considering all the other silly shit that's in the guidelines, why would something this obvious and precedented, multiple times, not be in there?
    Add me to "everyone" then. The reports are private, and should remain so. The members of Graffes have an expectation of privacy in their reporting and have said so multiple times when asked how it should be handled. That you are "willing to concede" what has been stated overwhelmingly is laughable Claud - as is your seeming confusion on why you using private reports to publicly attack other posters is a bad thing.

    "With your shield, or on it"

  18. #18
    Entropy happens
    Zarbonius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    3,555

    Re: Moderation Guidelines (20/09/2008)

    While I appreciate the clarification, that really didn't clarify anything.

    Are there other "implicit rules" that we (the rest of the board) don't know about? If there are, could you list them so that we (the people ) can examine them and decide if they should be explicitly stated?

  19. #19
    D E N I E D !
    ClaudShatterglass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    10,915
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Moderation Guidelines (20/09/2008)

    Well, there's the IP thing. Besides that, it seems we find them out as we go.

    Ninetoes, you're being distracted by the minor point and missing the major one. I'm absolutely not confused over my actions or the resulting reaction, I'm using this incident to illustrate the fundamental hypocrisy of our rules/guidelines system. So long as there is an "implicit" ruleset, having a published ruleset is meaningless.

  20. #20
    Elder Arcanist
    Maledict's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    10,808

    Re: Moderation Guidelines (20/09/2008)

    I can't think of any. To be honest, I'm still perplexed by why this was an issue in the first place, but it's all up there. I guess moderators expect the contents of the mod forum discussion to remain private so folks can chat frankly and freely in there when needed? (Which is about twice, three times a year it seems!).

    I dunno, I can't really list everything implicit because that would include a ton of stuff that seems obvious. Moderators can't use IP address info to harass people IRL, moderators shouldn't use the info they have to attack posters, moderators can't use account info to steal WoW accounts. That's the sort of stuff we're talking about here. I mean in this case, it wasn't even implicit - I linked the thread form Voca about the issue, it just wasn't written into the rules because like many of society's norms you don't explicity state them. There's no sign in my local restaurant saying "don't shit at the table", doesn't mean I can take a dump there because there's nothing saying I can't.

    Apparently this is all part of some devious ploy to show the world I'm a hyopcritical dictator who rules the boards with an iron fist and crushes all dissent. Which seems a great waste of mine and everyone elses time when you could just post about it, but nevermind - the more drama and stress the better eh!
    Last edited by Maledict; October 18th, 2009 at 03:08 PM.

Posting Permissions

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