There is a bit of dissatisfaction regarding the moderation on modified and I've been thinking of ways to help improve it.
I think the main problem is that we haven't been active enough, but I think there's other improvements we can make - in particular, I think the rules could be improved.
Specifically, we should alter the rule about personal attaks resulting in locked threads - so that we have the option of banning people and deleting the posts. I think this would really give us a lot more power to get rid of the posts people are complaining about and would give us something concrete to pin it on so that its not just a matter of measuring a tone or a vibe - I mean a personal attack is clear - you know one when you see it and its rarely a matter of dispute - and most of the annoying crap that goes on starts with a personal attack. I think its the weak spot in the rules because they require the threat to degenerate into a flame war and often this doesn't happen because the mature users keep it going and the crap is left to piss everyone off. The recent thread about modified switching service providers is a good example - the thread was locked in accordance with the rules and the real problem wasn't really dealt with, and the people who suffer are the ones who wanted to discuss the matter further and had to start a new thread.
Maybe we should make the rule - "Where threads degenerate into ongoing abusive personal attacks they may be locked. Users who post such attacks may have their posts deleted and repeated attacks will result in a ban."
Like all the rules its not perfect, there is some interpretation to be done, but since it takes repeated breaches to be banned - a mistaken deletion of a joke or ironic post or whatever won't do too much harm.
In the end the real problem is that we (the mods) need to actively enforce it, but as it stands now, I think the mods want to be careful not to go too far and subsequently aren't going far enough. This would help.
I'd like to keep discussion to the specific rule change proposed here rather than have this degenerate into a complaint fest so please try and stick to specific objections to the proposed rule.
Rule change
Rule change
Last edited by dyalander on 02 Oct 2008 18:07, edited 1 time in total.
Who wears short shorts?
Dylan Govender.
Dylan Govender.
Sounds like a good idea in theory. My fear from past experiences is that some particular mods will apply the rule to all personal attacks, while it really should only apply to personal attacks that are irrelevant and meaningless to the debate.
For example in the topic about the move that you're talking about some people made specific criticisms of Stevie G. While I didn't agree with their attacks, these were genuine concerns and clearly voicing them and having them addressed is better than keeping them silent. I have very little faith that all the mods are capable of discerning the difference between attacks like those and the kinds of personal attacks that should be deleted and result in the user being banned.
I would prefer to put up with the meaningless personal attacks, which take about 2 seconds to skip over, then have important posts deleted.
For example in the topic about the move that you're talking about some people made specific criticisms of Stevie G. While I didn't agree with their attacks, these were genuine concerns and clearly voicing them and having them addressed is better than keeping them silent. I have very little faith that all the mods are capable of discerning the difference between attacks like those and the kinds of personal attacks that should be deleted and result in the user being banned.
I would prefer to put up with the meaningless personal attacks, which take about 2 seconds to skip over, then have important posts deleted.
Yeah there is definitely a difference within "personal attacks" and I originally though that having some mention of being relevant or "on-topic" might be included, but the problem with an ad-hominem attack is that while it pretends to be on-topic, it actually isn't at all, that's the whole point. They just *seem* more relevent.
Perhaps I should add the word "abusive" to the rule so that it seeks to outlaw "abusive persoanl attacks" so that it more clearly doesn't apply to all ad hominem arguments.
I think we have to be able to trust the mods to make these judgements - and also our judgement will improve over time without necessarily doing significant damage - I'd suggest that what mods would do would be to make a post in the mod forum, quoting the post before it is deleted. That way if the mod has made a mistake, it can be rectified, and the post can be put back out. The mod would also have to pm the user and justilfy the action. And the user would certainly be able to have another crack at getting their point across in a more obviously acceptable, less abusive, manner. I think that's really the key - we'll be looking to reduce the abusive and anti-social edge to a lot of posting.
If the mods are, or any particular mod is regularly going to far - the users will quickly have a spack attack and point the problem out.
Also it would take repeated breaches to result in a ban so its unlikely that someone with good intentions, whose posts are being mistakenly misconstrued, will be banned - the first mistake would be discussed extensively and the other mods and users would have the opportunity to point it out before it could come to a ban.
Perhaps I should add the word "abusive" to the rule so that it seeks to outlaw "abusive persoanl attacks" so that it more clearly doesn't apply to all ad hominem arguments.
I think we have to be able to trust the mods to make these judgements - and also our judgement will improve over time without necessarily doing significant damage - I'd suggest that what mods would do would be to make a post in the mod forum, quoting the post before it is deleted. That way if the mod has made a mistake, it can be rectified, and the post can be put back out. The mod would also have to pm the user and justilfy the action. And the user would certainly be able to have another crack at getting their point across in a more obviously acceptable, less abusive, manner. I think that's really the key - we'll be looking to reduce the abusive and anti-social edge to a lot of posting.
If the mods are, or any particular mod is regularly going to far - the users will quickly have a spack attack and point the problem out.
Also it would take repeated breaches to result in a ban so its unlikely that someone with good intentions, whose posts are being mistakenly misconstrued, will be banned - the first mistake would be discussed extensively and the other mods and users would have the opportunity to point it out before it could come to a ban.
Who wears short shorts?
Dylan Govender.
Dylan Govender.
-
QuantumBalance
- 100-Watt Warlock
- Posts: 5092
- Joined: 22 Apr 2002 14:24
- Location: fractal tyedye nebulae
- Contact:
HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE?!~!??!?!?!?!I would prefer to put up with the meaningless personal attacks, which take about 2 seconds to skip over, then have important posts deleted.
I had a meaningful personal greivance and you had it deleted!!
Thats.... THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF WHAT YOU ACTUALLY SAID JEREMY!
You are dispicable!
I'm sorry... what?
I seriously think modified suffers from over-moderation because the community is so small that we don't want someone to get offended and leave.
That said, it seems mods are pulled in whenever there are disputes between individuals. Seriously, we aren't children here. Let people resolve their issues on their own in whatever means they deem appropriate as long as nothing racially offensive, violent, or sexually explicit is posted. I believe everything else can be fair game.
What's with this "no personal attacks" rule? I don't understand it. If someone has a beef about someone else, shouldn't it be allowed to be taken out for the public to see? Forums are about gathering perspective, so is an argument amongst members of this community not something we should gather our own personal perspective on the matter with?
The job of the mods isn't to keep everyone happy and getting along. They aren't parents. The job of the mods is to keep modified a consistently organized place where the basic rules are followed, such as no posting seuxally explicit or offensive content.
Who's the one doing all the complaining and asking for threads to be locked or deleted anyhow? Maybe I just don't frequent modified to notice, but modified is too squeeky clean for any entertainment value. I for one, would like to see more personal jabs at people.
The internet is SERIOUS business.
I seriously think modified suffers from over-moderation because the community is so small that we don't want someone to get offended and leave.
That said, it seems mods are pulled in whenever there are disputes between individuals. Seriously, we aren't children here. Let people resolve their issues on their own in whatever means they deem appropriate as long as nothing racially offensive, violent, or sexually explicit is posted. I believe everything else can be fair game.
What's with this "no personal attacks" rule? I don't understand it. If someone has a beef about someone else, shouldn't it be allowed to be taken out for the public to see? Forums are about gathering perspective, so is an argument amongst members of this community not something we should gather our own personal perspective on the matter with?
The job of the mods isn't to keep everyone happy and getting along. They aren't parents. The job of the mods is to keep modified a consistently organized place where the basic rules are followed, such as no posting seuxally explicit or offensive content.
Who's the one doing all the complaining and asking for threads to be locked or deleted anyhow? Maybe I just don't frequent modified to notice, but modified is too squeeky clean for any entertainment value. I for one, would like to see more personal jabs at people.
The internet is SERIOUS business.
Pengpeng Du
Just to clarify, I said that the topic should be deleted because it wasn't a serious issue and there was no serious discussion. Also I said it should be "deleted or moved." I didn't ask any mods to do that, I just thought it was pretty clearly not a topic of serious discussion. I can't believe I've even wasted the time to say that much.
I will say though, I'm very honoured that you care so much about my opinion Sam. Personally you're opinions matter very little to me, which is why I've barely responded on this issue. I have Ken and Dan to repeat my posts anyway (although hilarious attacking me at the same time - I'll keep you guys posted on more mistakes I make so you can get stuck in on something else too). Perhaps if you show some rationality and a sense of perspective about the difference between trivial and important I may show you less disrespect.
I will say though, I'm very honoured that you care so much about my opinion Sam. Personally you're opinions matter very little to me, which is why I've barely responded on this issue. I have Ken and Dan to repeat my posts anyway (although hilarious attacking me at the same time - I'll keep you guys posted on more mistakes I make so you can get stuck in on something else too). Perhaps if you show some rationality and a sense of perspective about the difference between trivial and important I may show you less disrespect.
-
QuantumBalance
- 100-Watt Warlock
- Posts: 5092
- Joined: 22 Apr 2002 14:24
- Location: fractal tyedye nebulae
- Contact:
-
Blue_turnip
- Egyptian Footgod
- Posts: 1239
- Joined: 29 Nov 2004 03:55
- Location: Melbourne