Rule #2: Discussion of Moderation

[nPeace]

So... ambitious, then...

Wanna take that spool of thread and fix my dress?

Where did you get him from?

 

[JustGeorge]

Where did you get him from?

A gift years ago.

Now the whole closet's full of garments...

 

[nPeace]

A gift years ago.

Now the whole closet's full of garments...

Oh. That one is nice.

 

[nPeace]

If you make a thread in SF, and no one has responded, several of the scenarios may be at play:

-There's no staff online who knows anything about the issue you're addressing.

Something came to mind on this.
What if the issue is there for all staff members to see, is there any reason why the mod that issued the warning needs to address it?

I thought the decision represents the decision of the staff.
If that is not the case, would that not be an open portal for one staff member to use that authority to act according to personal bias?

What if the query of the user is indicating bias, can other staff members not address the user's concerns?

@Heyo I too would like for all members on RF to be able to see what response is given by staff, but that's not to be.
I think @Revoltingest made a good point here... By analogy, policing procedures throughout Ameristan are
being opened up to civilian review. If this is progressive &
useful then it's worth considering the same here.

 

[JustGeorge]

Something came to mind on this.
What if the issue is there for all staff members to see, is there any reason why the mod that issued the warning needs to address it?

I thought the decision represents the decision of the staff.
If that is not the case, would that not be an open portal for one staff member to use that authority to act according to personal bias?

What if the query of the user is indicating bias, can other staff members not address the user's concerns?

@Heyo I too would like for all members on RF to be able to see what response is given by staff, but that's not to be.
I think @Revoltingest made a good point here... By analogy, policing procedures throughout Ameristan are
being opened up to civilian review. If this is progressive &
useful then it's worth considering the same here.

I'll ty to make up a scenario to explain how these situations work.

Larry makes a crack at Moe's mother. Curly sees it and reports it. There are 7 staff online at the time, 5 are active and available.

Staff A says : that's a rule 3 violation

Staff B says: that's a rule 1 violation

Staff C says: Moe's mother isn't a member, I don't see the problem

Staff D says: Rule 1

Staff E says Rule 3.

Well, we need a consensus of three votes to act(or not act). So, we're going to have to wait a bit for another staff to come on and tie break(or add another dimension). Lets say staff F comes on and declares it a rule 3 violation later in the day. Larry is given a warning.

Larry is angry. He makes a thread in Site Feedback. He says Moe called him a doo doo head earlier, so he was entitled to make that crack. The only staff on is staff G and staff H, who have no idea what this is all about, as they were at Disney World when it happened. They choose to wait for staff C, who didn't vote for the warning, but was still around to understand the situation a little better. Can staff G and H respond? Certainly. But, if they don't feel they're able to, they're not required and can wait on someone else they feel is better informed to do it. Or, they may only have come on to post pictures from their vacation, and log off right after.

Once in SF, even though staff C sided with Larry, she cannot say "you know, I don't like this warning, I'll remove it for you". She can speak for the staff in a general sense, and let Larry know that a consensus of three votes was arrived at, but all actions taken/not taken are put through the same process. No staff can give warnings because they 'feel like it', or because they don't like somebody. No one individual staff takes action on their own. This is actually to prevent bias. The staffers are actually a pretty diverse group, so everything that comes through is being seen by a group that has differing outlooks, worldviews, and opinions. Again, this is to prevent bias.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'll ty to make up a scenario to explain how these situations work.

Larry makes a crack at Moe's mother. Curly sees it and reports it. There are 7 staff online at the time, 5 are active and available.

Staff A says : that's a rule 3 violation

Staff B says: that's a rule 1 violation

Staff C says: Moe's mother isn't a member, I don't see the problem

Staff D says: Rule 1

Staff E says Rule 3.

Well, we need a consensus of three votes to act(or not act). So, we're going to have to wait a bit for another staff to come on and tie break(or add another dimension). Lets say staff F comes on and declares it a rule 3 violation later in the day. Larry is given a warning.

Larry is angry. He makes a thread in Site Feedback. He says Moe called him a doo doo head earlier, so he was entitled to make that crack. The only staff on is staff G and staff H, who have no idea what this is all about, as they were at Disney World when it happened. They choose to wait for staff C, who didn't vote for the warning, but was still around to understand the situation a little better. Can staff G and H respond? Certainly. But, if they don't feel they're able to, they're not required and can wait on someone else they feel is better informed to do it. Or, they may only have come on to post pictures from their vacation, and log off right after.

Once in SF, even though staff C sided with Larry, she cannot say "you know, I don't like this warning, I'll remove it for you". She can speak for the staff in a general sense, and let Larry know that a consensus of three votes was arrived at, but all actions taken/not taken are put through the same process. No staff can give warnings because they 'feel like it', or because they don't like somebody. No one individual staff takes action on their own. This is actually to prevent bias. The staffers are actually a pretty diverse group, so everything that comes through is being seen by a group that has differing outlooks, worldviews, and opinions. Again, this is to prevent bias.

Staff are indeed quite diverse, ranging from the far left to the left.
(Just kidding! Most are, but I know a couple leaning otherwise.)
I vote for more transparency in all kinds of enforcement. And
especially so when enforcers wander off the straight & narrow.

 

[nPeace]

I'll ty to make up a scenario to explain how these situations work.

Larry makes a crack at Moe's mother. Curly sees it and reports it. There are 7 staff online at the time, 5 are active and available.

Staff A says : that's a rule 3 violation

Staff B says: that's a rule 1 violation

Staff C says: Moe's mother isn't a member, I don't see the problem

Staff D says: Rule 1

Staff E says Rule 3.

Well, we need a consensus of three votes to act(or not act). So, we're going to have to wait a bit for another staff to come on and tie break(or add another dimension). Lets say staff F comes on and declares it a rule 3 violation later in the day. Larry is given a warning.

Larry is angry. He makes a thread in Site Feedback. He says Moe called him a doo doo head earlier, so he was entitled to make that crack. The only staff on is staff G and staff H, who have no idea what this is all about, as they were at Disney World when it happened. They choose to wait for staff C, who didn't vote for the warning, but was still around to understand the situation a little better. Can staff G and H respond? Certainly. But, if they don't feel they're able to, they're not required and can wait on someone else they feel is better informed to do it. Or, they may only have come on to post pictures from their vacation, and log off right after.

Once in SF, even though staff C sided with Larry, she cannot say "you know, I don't like this warning, I'll remove it for you". She can speak for the staff in a general sense, and let Larry know that a consensus of three votes was arrived at, but all actions taken/not taken are put through the same process. No staff can give warnings because they 'feel like it', or because they don't like somebody. No one individual staff takes action on their own. This is actually to prevent bias. The staffers are actually a pretty diverse group, so everything that comes through is being seen by a group that has differing outlooks, worldviews, and opinions. Again, this is to prevent bias.

Thank you.
I was just told that the consensus is a three member consensus, and was about to ask why three, and not more than half the staff... say ten?

So I think you are saying, it depends on how many of the members are active.
What if three of those members are buddies, who got each other's back?
They have crooked cops who work like that.

 

[JustGeorge]

Staff are indeed quite diverse, ranging from the far left to the left.
(Just kidding! Most are, but I know a couple leaning otherwise.)
I vote for more transparency in all kinds of enforcement. And
especially so when enforcers wander off the straight & narrow.

I will have you know I identify as North East, except on Tuesdays and Fridays, when I identify as South West, for variety. And then, every other year, I switch to be North West and South East.

What do you feel lacks transparency?

Thank you.
I was just told that the consensus is a three member consensus, and was about to ask why three, and not more than half the staff... say ten?

So I think you are saying, it depends on how many of the members are active.
What if three of those members are buddies, who got each other's back?
They have crooked cops who work like that.

The rule of 'votes of three' were put into place well before my time, but I can say if it took more votes than that, things could possibly become very drawn out and time consuming.

There's probably nothing I can say that would prove that there couldn't be three cronies all voting alike because they're buds... but that doesn't happen. It just doesn't. You can trust this, or not(I can't do a thing about it), but sometimes staff that get along very well vote differently, or may disagree on the issues at hand.

 

[Revoltingest]

What do you feel lacks transparency?

- Which posts are moderated.
- Who receives what punishment.
- All of the rules...there are unwritten ones that
appear to come & go, eg, prohibiting posting a
picture or a news link without commentary.

It would be useful for one to see how each
report was acted upon. Could trends emerge?

The rule of 'votes of three' were put into place well before my time, but I can say if it took more votes than that, things could possibly become very drawn out and time consuming.

And of course, admins are allowed unilateral action.

There's probably nothing I can say that would prove that there couldn't be three cronies all voting alike because they're buds... but that doesn't happen. It just doesn't. You can trust this, or not(I can't do a thing about it), but sometimes staff that get along very well vote differently, or may disagree on the issues at hand.

I've been here good while, & posted much.
I've seen things from before your arrival.
So at the risk of put'n on airs, I've a broader
perspective.
I say moderation works effectively. But there's
room for improvement, eg, notifications of a
violation being more than vague boilerplate,
& necessitating Site Feedback to discern what
the real objection was.

 

[Debater Slayer]

The alternative to confidential moderation would be to risk a lot of drama, people siding with those they like or against those they dislike, public embarrassment of the moderated party, and unfruitful arguing about moderation actions (or lack thereof), among other things.

I have seen both the public approach and the confidential one when it comes to forum moderation. The latter is far more reasonable and conducive to a peaceful atmosphere, at least for a forum of the nature of RF.

 

[Debater Slayer]

But there's
room for improvement, eg, notifications of a
violation being more than vague boilerplate,
& necessitating Site Feedback to discern what
the real objection was.

This is more of a software and time-imposed limitation than anything. We deal with hundreds of reports every month, so there is no room to customize the message for each and every one of the actions we take. Automated messages are imperfect, but combined with the availability of Site Feedback for further clarification, it's the best and most feasible arrangement we have for now.

 

[JustGeorge]

So at the risk of put'n on airs, I've a broader
perspective.

If you're gonna put on airs, I do hope you remember... pinkies up!

 

[Revoltingest]

This is more of a software and time-imposed limitation than anything. We deal with hundreds of reports every month, so there is no room to customize the message for each and every one of the actions we take. Automated messages are imperfect, but combined with the availability of Site Feedback for further clarification, it's the best and most feasible arrangement we have for now.

If thought is put into the why, consensus, & determination
of sanction, then certainly a sentence of explanation would
be little extra burden. Site Feedback can be a lengthy process
too...one which could be lessened.

 

[Revoltingest]

If you're gonna put on airs, I do hope you remember... pinkies up!

Of course...I watched the classics as a young'n.

 

[Revoltingest]

The alternative to confidential moderation would be to risk a lot of drama, people siding with those they like or against those they dislike, public embarrassment of the moderated party, and unfruitful arguing about moderation actions (or lack thereof), among other things.

I have seen both the public approach and the confidential one when it comes to forum moderation. The latter is far more reasonable and conducive to a peaceful atmosphere, at least for a forum of the nature of RF.

Peace thru secrecy of policing has its advantages.
China works that way, & is efficient at quelling drama.
But I prefer that the drama be open for all to see.
You're not right. Neither am I. It's about preference.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Peace thru secrecy of policing has its advantages.
China works that way, & is efficient at quelling drama.
But I prefer that the drama be open for all to see.
You're not right. Neither am I. It's about preference.

China doesn't generally let you dispute policing or reverse its decisions upon review, though. RF does.

I agree both approaches have their advantages. I just think the advantages of the confidential approach are much more suitable and helpful for RF given the forum's nature and subject matter.

 

[Revoltingest]

I agree both approaches have their advantages. I just think the advantages of the confidential approach are much more suitable and helpful for RF given the forum's nature and subject matter.

Of course.
Watchers chafe at being watched themselves.

I can see some reasonable limits, eg, a private
discussion between a member & staff. But with
the violation & results being public.

 

[Luchito Prays]

I also received a note from a moderator. And I don't dispute it because I see that yes, I would have use a different way to write what I wrote, and my intention wasn't as directed to my opposite but as a general situation.

Anyways, to me, in forums, the rules are not made by the common member or visitor, but by the ones who created it and are in charge to monitor the conversations.

To see how the position of the poster is when is about rules, the best example is the common saying that "the customer is always right".

This question "who is always right?" was made to candidates to a job as attendant in a bank. Only one was to be hired. The candidates by heart answered "the customer".

But a young woman, when she was asked the same question, she responded: The boss.

She was hired.

 

[Quagmire]

I also received a note from a moderator. And I don't dispute it because I see that yes, I would have use a different way to write what I wrote, and my intention wasn't as directed to my opposite but as a general situation.

Anyways, to me, in forums, the rules are not made by the common member or visitor, but by the ones who created it and are in charge to monitor the conversations.

To see how the position of the poster is when is about rules, the best example is the common saying that "the customer is always right".

This question "who is always right?" was made to candidates to a job as attendant in a bank. Only one was to be hired. The candidates by heart answered "the customer".

But a young woman, when she was asked the same question, she responded: The boss.

She was hired.

The plaque on the wall in the staff lounge says,
"The Customer is Usually Crazy".

 

[nPeace]

Of course.
Watchers chafe at being watched themselves.

I can see some reasonable limits, eg, a private
discussion between a member & staff. But with
the violation & results being public.

I agree.
That can serve as a strong deterrent, since it is public for others to see both the violation, and the end result.
I think it also would serve to deter any bias, or apathy on the part of those with the responsibility of enforcing the rules in a fair manner.