Quote:
Originally Posted by Gman5852
The second episode had that planned from the start...
|
Don't drag this here please. I've enough of this as it is.
Counts as off topic here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Giant Tope
What I mean is that there doesn't really seem to be official conduct of business. Decisions always come off as whether or not it felt right to do by the mod at that time rather than actual code of conduct and I feel like this causes a lot of conflict both internally and externally. From my understanding, you folks get a very general guideline of how to run the place, but overall there isn't a whole lot of structure to it.
|
You might think more "bureaucracy" in that area would be a good thing. I do not agree. If mods are always invoking some kind of moderator constitution, they're listening less to the community and to other mods.
We can not just count the number of offenses and then yank a community member out. There can not be a code of conduct listing various offenses and their severity. I am convinced that the attempt alone would massively
increase arbitrariness in mod decisions and end in
less guidance for the volunteers.
Moderators DO decide on a case to case basis. These are
individual personal decisions, and I understand that this irks you. In my experience, what results is a pretty lenient moderation, while the team discussion prevents that a mod is going rogue. We're not the police, we're part of the community. When we take measures, we take the personal into account. When a good guy who has been around for years suddenly starts spewing insulting nonsense, we'd like to know the
reasons before possibly kicking him out of a community he or she might need as support. Introducing hard and fast "mechanical" rules, we'd eliminate the personal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarpSpeed
There's a rule that you're not allowed to talk about why a member is banned, probably to avoid criticism that whatever behavior really merited a ban. The result can be stifling, though. Perhaps when someone asks why so-and-so was banned, a moderator could respond, saying this person had ignored three warnings, was getting out of control, and needs a couple of weeks to cool off, or whatever. Then, when inevitably someone yells that that's no reason to ban anyone, just don't respond.
|
First, we would be talking about the banned member behind his back, making him more angry than he probably already is. Sure I could go on the Walking Dead forum posting "that last one was banned for two months because he tried to organize a shitstorm, made ten insulting, duplicate and disruptive threads total (closed or moved, not deleted), ignored clear warnings, then continuously PM'd moderators accusing them of censorship". But first of all the banned member would have no way of defending himself while the questioning community would have more inquiries even a team of 20 moderators could answer immediately. We won't spend 95% of our time here explaining ourselves. As you can see, we do enough of that already, and I haven't seen this in ANY other forum that way.
Occasionally ban reasons have been announced, and I think I was at the forefront of this once. I don't do this at all today. When someone is actually banned, the decision stands. No discussion. Professionalism and continuous justification of one's acts are at cross purposes here.
As soon as TWD Season is over, I hope bans will be of the utmost rarity again anyway - which will probably lead to more explaining again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Giant Tope
Another note: I personally don't think posts need to be outright deleted unless they contain gore, pornography, unwanted personal information, or legitimate threats because if they get instantly covered up without anybody knowing about it, then the community would have no idea that sort of action was wrong. Even in the cases of the exceptions, I'd imagine it'd be best if they were snipped out by mods with an explanation. However, that's not my call to make.
|
There seems to have been a central traumatic experience with deleted posts in your forum past. I apologize for it. Fact is - posts are VERY rarely deleted. I sometimes did it (WITH announcement) to give a topic a new chance by killing off the completely derailed discussion elements. Only experimented with it when I started out, didn't like the feel. And at present, a lot of the insulting stuff I usually would have deleted or snipped in the TWD area just "remains" with an infraction - as testimony of the particular user and for future reference. The tone in there is rough - users should know.
Snipping means directly cutting areas of meaning out of a user's message, leaving the other users to actively guess the rest of the effectively crippled original message. An added moderator explanation feels a lot like mockery to the user in question, whose message was undoubtedly obscured. To be honest, to me, deletion actually feels less like censorship than snipping. But I'm coming from the journalistic field of professions in RL, where an edited article often feels worse than one simply not published.