• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Zen and the art of moderation
2 2

Started by Architecht,

908 posts in this topic

Logan510

Logan510

Posted
Posted
Until Fingh sells me his Avengers Sketch I have been after for a year now its pure disdain. :slapfight:

 

:busy:

 

You have a book I want as well, but I still have much love :luhv:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Logan510

Logan510

Posted
Posted
Until Fingh sells me his Avengers Sketch I have been after for a year now its pure disdain. :slapfight:

 

:busy:

 

You have a book I want as well, but I still have much love :luhv:

 

:busy:

 

It'll be the day after Doomsday that you'll think about selling it :sorry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Administrator
Architecht

Architecht

Posted
  • Author
  • Administrator
Posted

Some of you occasionally (read: everyone who ever got a strike or warning) may deeply believe that in your case it was all about injustice. You may even have a point - like our speeder above who was not the fastest one in the pack. But you were still speeding.

 

lol

 

All the above rests on the VERY flawed premise that every person who got a strike or warning was violating the rules as obviously as when one speeds.

 

Why is it flawed?

 

Because speeding is black and white."You were going 61. The limit is 55. By definition, you were speeding, even accounting for variances in speed detection technology."

 

Moderation HERE, however, depends solely on your OPINION, and the opinions of your team.

 

Unfortunately, when you refuse to moderate according to your own policies, when you ignore your own policies, when you are radically inconsistent in enforcing your policies...

 

Well.

 

Your assertion that "every single person was speeding" doesn't really hold much water, now does it...?

 

For the most part, people aren't stupid here. For the most part. People know when they're being overpoliced. They know when they are being underpoliced. They can see for themselves whether or not things are being handled even-handedly, "confirmation bias" or not.

 

For you to claim that every single person who ever got a strike or warning was clearly and obviously "speeding" is ludicrous, because it would make you perfect! Are you really claiming you have been perfect in your moderation here...?

 

I know you're not, and I only need Diggler's "nipple" strike to prove it. You didn't even give Diggler a CHANCE to explain, you just struck him, that's that, end of story. It took a virtual uprising from everyone ELSE to get you to back down and admit that you had issued a strike IN ERROR.

 

And if that one example puts the lie to your claim that "everyone who got a strike or warning deserved it", what else is there that is not so black and white..?

 

The hubris!

 

"Moderation is HARD!!"

 

No.

 

It's not.

 

Is it tedious? Oh yes. Yes, indeed.

 

Is it HARD?

 

No.

 

You treat everyone the same way, equally, all the time, and you do it within the parameters of your stated rules. You do this so that certain areas of the board...like comics general, like the water closet, like modern comics...don't become cesspools of personality, where everyone is on edge, with a hair trigger outlook, where every single post that CAN be taken wrong IS, where people are taking endless shots at other people, and they don't even know why.

 

Otherwise...you get this never ending cycle...going on for ELEVEN YEARS NOW...of over moderation, then under moderation, then people complaining because you aren't doing your jobs so clearly that it's painfully evident to even the sunniest board member, then you have to...AGAIN...step in to say "moderation is HARD!!"

 

meh

 

You may be able to convince most of the people, Mr. Oz...but some people are capable of looking behind the curtain, believe it or not.

 

Hi RMA,

 

From a moderator perspective, I've put the things you have said above in red that are wording or emphasis that inflame other people. I also highlighted quotes you used that I didn't say. You can extend things I said to mean that, but that extension is more about you artificially teeing up a ball you can hit than about real communication.

 

These things weren't necessary to make your point. Practices like that tend to create boards that "...become cesspools of personality, where everyone is on edge, with a hair trigger outlook".

 

If you talk to everyone like you have above I think you will find most of your time at this board or any other a place you go to be a place where "every single post that CAN be taken wrong IS, where people are taking endless shots at other people, and they don't even know why". Hope it helps in your other interactions and cuts down on the need to not speak, and/or feud with everyone.

 

 

Apart from that, I'll give a one-time response to your points for the general readership.

 

Moderation is not wholly consistent and especially will not appear wholly consistent without all of the information. These factors guaranty some inconsistency and some perception of inconsistency:

 

1. The tendency of the community to sometimes and sometimes not notify mods.

 

2. The way that various violations are buried in very large threads.

 

3. The individual interpretations of a team of moderators of both the guidelines and their interpretation of the specific intent of the posters.

 

4. The necessity in a thread that is way out of control to pick off the few worst offenders to rein in back in rather than banning everyone.

 

5. The application of the pattern of behavior (or lack thereof) of particular posters to the moderation decisions. i.e. recidivists get less leash.

 

6. The fact that some moderator actions (wrist slaps, private warnings) are not visible to anyone but the mods and the offenders.

 

7. An observer's own variances in interpretation of all of the above, as well as limited attention to the posting patterns of people.

 

 

Moderation is based on opinion, yes. Just like the verdicts in courts, the discretion of the police, etc.. There are mistakes, yes. You have cited one that was corrected quickly from a number of years ago - I don't remember how many years. I don't think that necessarily deserves the outrage treatment you give it, but then again your opinion of moderation opinions is based on... opinion. Was that english? Probably not.

 

I'm not speaking in absolutes here. It's too squishy a process. I do think that by and large we try to lean towards a benefit-of-the-doubt stance that means that more often then not if someone get a strike, they deserved it. We do get new mods in from time to time and that introduces additional fluctuation. Ccgmod0 is new, for example.

 

If the rules say not to do something, just avoid doing it. It's really not that hard.

 

If you're going to respond again, RMA, turn the volume on the outrage down. It's not constructive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Administrator
Architecht

Architecht

Posted
  • Author
  • Administrator
Posted

By the way, if it helps, here's generally how I think about profanity moderation.

 

But I'll add that if we go from an occasional profanity for emphasis among adults to people with a consistent pattern of inappropriate language, then the standards have to tighten to get people to use it with discretion rather than abandon.

 

 

5/8/2009

Just so everyone knows, also, my take on masking and profanity is that while masking isn't strictly allowed, getting meticulous about removing all of it is probably a little restrictive and definitely very time consuming. We're aiming for more like PG-13 rather than G.

 

Generally I'm most concerned with profanity use when applied in a derogatory manner. e.g.

 

"now that stuff is the s-hit!" -- not really allowed, needs to be discouraged, maybe not worth any kind of crusade

 

"You explanation is s-hit!" -- Not allowed. Combative. Generally should be removed.

 

"You are a s-hit!" -- Definitely not allowed. Remove with extreme prejudice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
gaz973

gaz973

Posted
Posted
By the way, if it helps, here's generally how I think about profanity moderation.

 

But I'll add that if we go from an occasional profanity for emphasis among adults to people with a consistent pattern of inappropriate language, then the standards have to tighten to get people to use it with discretion rather than abandon.

 

 

5/8/2009

Just so everyone knows, also, my take on masking and profanity is that while masking isn't strictly allowed, getting meticulous about removing all of it is probably a little restrictive and definitely very time consuming. We're aiming for more like PG-13 rather than G.

 

Generally I'm most concerned with profanity use when applied in a derogatory manner. e.g.

 

"now that stuff is the s-hit!" -- not really allowed, needs to be discouraged, maybe not worth any kind of crusade

 

"You explanation is s-hit!" -- Not allowed. Combative. Generally should be removed.

 

"You are a s-hit!" -- Definitely not allowed. Remove with extreme prejudice.

 

Basically you're asking for people to use common sense?

 

Um...... good luck with that. :whistle:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
oakman29

oakman29

Posted
Posted
By the way, if it helps, here's generally how I think about profanity moderation.

 

But I'll add that if we go from an occasional profanity for emphasis among adults to people with a consistent pattern of inappropriate language, then the standards have to tighten to get people to use it with discretion rather than abandon.

 

 

5/8/2009

Just so everyone knows, also, my take on masking and profanity is that while masking isn't strictly allowed, getting meticulous about removing all of it is probably a little restrictive and definitely very time consuming. We're aiming for more like PG-13 rather than G.

 

Generally I'm most concerned with profanity use when applied in a derogatory manner. e.g.

 

"now that stuff is the s-hit!" -- not really allowed, needs to be discouraged, maybe not worth any kind of crusade

 

"You explanation is s-hit!" -- Not allowed. Combative. Generally should be removed.

 

"You are a s-hit!" -- Definitely not allowed. Remove with extreme prejudice.

 

Basically you're asking for people to use common sense?

 

Um...... good luck with that. :whistle:

 

Well that will never work. lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mikenyc

mikenyc

Posted
Posted

Some of you occasionally (read: everyone who ever got a strike or warning) may deeply believe that in your case it was all about injustice. You may even have a point - like our speeder above who was not the fastest one in the pack. But you were still speeding.

 

lol

 

All the above rests on the VERY flawed premise that every person who got a strike or warning was violating the rules as obviously as when one speeds.

 

Why is it flawed?

 

Because speeding is black and white."You were going 61. The limit is 55. By definition, you were speeding, even accounting for variances in speed detection technology."

 

Moderation HERE, however, depends solely on your OPINION, and the opinions of your team.

 

Unfortunately, when you refuse to moderate according to your own policies, when you ignore your own policies, when you are radically inconsistent in enforcing your policies...

 

Well.

 

Your assertion that "every single person was speeding" doesn't really hold much water, now does it...?

 

For the most part, people aren't stupid here. For the most part. People know when they're being overpoliced. They know when they are being underpoliced. They can see for themselves whether or not things are being handled even-handedly, "confirmation bias" or not.

 

For you to claim that every single person who ever got a strike or warning was clearly and obviously "speeding" is ludicrous, because it would make you perfect! Are you really claiming you have been perfect in your moderation here...?

 

I know you're not, and I only need Diggler's "nipple" strike to prove it. You didn't even give Diggler a CHANCE to explain, you just struck him, that's that, end of story. It took a virtual uprising from everyone ELSE to get you to back down and admit that you had issued a strike IN ERROR.

 

And if that one example puts the lie to your claim that "everyone who got a strike or warning deserved it", what else is there that is not so black and white..?

 

The hubris!

 

"Moderation is HARD!!"

 

No.

 

It's not.

 

Is it tedious? Oh yes. Yes, indeed.

 

Is it HARD?

 

No.

 

You treat everyone the same way, equally, all the time, and you do it within the parameters of your stated rules. You do this so that certain areas of the board...like comics general, like the water closet, like modern comics...don't become cesspools of personality, where everyone is on edge, with a hair trigger outlook, where every single post that CAN be taken wrong IS, where people are taking endless shots at other people, and they don't even know why.

 

Otherwise...you get this never ending cycle...going on for ELEVEN YEARS NOW...of over moderation, then under moderation, then people complaining because you aren't doing your jobs so clearly that it's painfully evident to even the sunniest board member, then you have to...AGAIN...step in to say "moderation is HARD!!"

 

meh

 

You may be able to convince most of the people, Mr. Oz...but some people are capable of looking behind the curtain, believe it or not.

 

Hi RMA,

 

From a moderator perspective, I've put the things you have said above in red that are wording or emphasis that inflame other people. I also highlighted quotes you used that I didn't say. You can extend things I said to mean that, but that extension is more about you artificially teeing up a ball you can hit than about real communication.

 

These things weren't necessary to make your point. Practices like that tend to create boards that "...become cesspools of personality, where everyone is on edge, with a hair trigger outlook".

 

If you talk to everyone like you have above I think you will find most of your time at this board or any other a place you go to be a place where "every single post that CAN be taken wrong IS, where people are taking endless shots at other people, and they don't even know why". Hope it helps in your other interactions and cuts down on the need to not speak, and/or feud with everyone.

 

 

Apart from that, I'll give a one-time response to your points for the general readership.

 

Moderation is not wholly consistent and especially will not appear wholly consistent without all of the information. These factors guaranty some inconsistency and some perception of inconsistency:

 

1. The tendency of the community to sometimes and sometimes not notify mods.

 

2. The way that various violations are buried in very large threads.

 

3. The individual interpretations of a team of moderators of both the guidelines and their interpretation of the specific intent of the posters.

 

4. The necessity in a thread that is way out of control to pick off the few worst offenders to rein in back in rather than banning everyone.

 

5. The application of the pattern of behavior (or lack thereof) of particular posters to the moderation decisions. i.e. recidivists get less leash.

 

6. The fact that some moderator actions (wrist slaps, private warnings) are not visible to anyone but the mods and the offenders.

 

7. An observer's own variances in interpretation of all of the above, as well as limited attention to the posting patterns of people.

 

 

Moderation is based on opinion, yes. Just like the verdicts in courts, the discretion of the police, etc.. There are mistakes, yes. You have cited one that was corrected quickly from a number of years ago - I don't remember how many years. I don't think that necessarily deserves the outrage treatment you give it, but then again your opinion of moderation opinions is based on... opinion. Was that english? Probably not.

 

I'm not speaking in absolutes here. It's too squishy a process. I do think that by and large we try to lean towards a benefit-of-the-doubt stance that means that more often then not if someone get a strike, they deserved it. We do get new mods in from time to time and that introduces additional fluctuation. Ccgmod0 is new, for example.

 

If the rules say not to do something, just avoid doing it. It's really not that hard.

 

If you're going to respond again, RMA, turn the volume on the outrage down. It's not constructive.

 

:popcorn:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Park

Park

Posted
Posted

Some of you occasionally (read: everyone who ever got a strike or warning) may deeply believe that in your case it was all about injustice. You may even have a point - like our speeder above who was not the fastest one in the pack. But you were still speeding.

 

lol

 

All the above rests on the VERY flawed premise that every person who got a strike or warning was violating the rules as obviously as when one speeds.

 

Why is it flawed?

 

Because speeding is black and white."You were going 61. The limit is 55. By definition, you were speeding, even accounting for variances in speed detection technology."

 

Moderation HERE, however, depends solely on your OPINION, and the opinions of your team.

 

Unfortunately, when you refuse to moderate according to your own policies, when you ignore your own policies, when you are radically inconsistent in enforcing your policies...

 

Well.

 

Your assertion that "every single person was speeding" doesn't really hold much water, now does it...?

 

For the most part, people aren't stupid here. For the most part. People know when they're being overpoliced. They know when they are being underpoliced. They can see for themselves whether or not things are being handled even-handedly, "confirmation bias" or not.

 

For you to claim that every single person who ever got a strike or warning was clearly and obviously "speeding" is ludicrous, because it would make you perfect! Are you really claiming you have been perfect in your moderation here...?

 

I know you're not, and I only need Diggler's "nipple" strike to prove it. You didn't even give Diggler a CHANCE to explain, you just struck him, that's that, end of story. It took a virtual uprising from everyone ELSE to get you to back down and admit that you had issued a strike IN ERROR.

 

And if that one example puts the lie to your claim that "everyone who got a strike or warning deserved it", what else is there that is not so black and white..?

 

The hubris!

 

"Moderation is HARD!!"

 

No.

 

It's not.

 

Is it tedious? Oh yes. Yes, indeed.

 

Is it HARD?

 

No.

 

You treat everyone the same way, equally, all the time, and you do it within the parameters of your stated rules. You do this so that certain areas of the board...like comics general, like the water closet, like modern comics...don't become cesspools of personality, where everyone is on edge, with a hair trigger outlook, where every single post that CAN be taken wrong IS, where people are taking endless shots at other people, and they don't even know why.

 

Otherwise...you get this never ending cycle...going on for ELEVEN YEARS NOW...of over moderation, then under moderation, then people complaining because you aren't doing your jobs so clearly that it's painfully evident to even the sunniest board member, then you have to...AGAIN...step in to say "moderation is HARD!!"

 

meh

 

You may be able to convince most of the people, Mr. Oz...but some people are capable of looking behind the curtain, believe it or not.

 

Hi RMA,

 

From a moderator perspective, I've put the things you have said above in red that are wording or emphasis that inflame other people. I also highlighted quotes you used that I didn't say. You can extend things I said to mean that, but that extension is more about you artificially teeing up a ball you can hit than about real communication.

 

These things weren't necessary to make your point. Practices like that tend to create boards that "...become cesspools of personality, where everyone is on edge, with a hair trigger outlook".

 

If you talk to everyone like you have above I think you will find most of your time at this board or any other a place you go to be a place where "every single post that CAN be taken wrong IS, where people are taking endless shots at other people, and they don't even know why". Hope it helps in your other interactions and cuts down on the need to not speak, and/or feud with everyone.

 

 

Apart from that, I'll give a one-time response to your points for the general readership.

 

Moderation is not wholly consistent and especially will not appear wholly consistent without all of the information. These factors guaranty some inconsistency and some perception of inconsistency:

 

1. The tendency of the community to sometimes and sometimes not notify mods.

 

2. The way that various violations are buried in very large threads.

 

3. The individual interpretations of a team of moderators of both the guidelines and their interpretation of the specific intent of the posters.

 

4. The necessity in a thread that is way out of control to pick off the few worst offenders to rein in back in rather than banning everyone.

 

5. The application of the pattern of behavior (or lack thereof) of particular posters to the moderation decisions. i.e. recidivists get less leash.

 

6. The fact that some moderator actions (wrist slaps, private warnings) are not visible to anyone but the mods and the offenders.

 

7. An observer's own variances in interpretation of all of the above, as well as limited attention to the posting patterns of people.

 

 

Moderation is based on opinion, yes. Just like the verdicts in courts, the discretion of the police, etc.. There are mistakes, yes. You have cited one that was corrected quickly from a number of years ago - I don't remember how many years. I don't think that necessarily deserves the outrage treatment you give it, but then again your opinion of moderation opinions is based on... opinion. Was that english? Probably not.

 

I'm not speaking in absolutes here. It's too squishy a process. I do think that by and large we try to lean towards a benefit-of-the-doubt stance that means that more often then not if someone get a strike, they deserved it. We do get new mods in from time to time and that introduces additional fluctuation. Ccgmod0 is new, for example.

 

If the rules say not to do something, just avoid doing it. It's really not that hard.

 

If you're going to respond again, RMA, turn the volume on the outrage down. It's not constructive.

 

Way to ramp this bad boy back up after it petered out.

 

-5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
2 2
Go to topic listing