Swift, NJ and a Magile walk into a chatroom...

[Nalo Jade]

So at the extreme wee hours of the evening Swift and I had a chat about moderation.

Swift and I talked about the new moderation policy, and thought maybe we could come to a compromise...if not no harm no foul.

We came up with a couple/few recommendations that we would like Admin to take a second to look over....please.

We would like to see the process of the moderators with regards to dealing out temp bans and strikes to follow these lines...

--A Mod suggests ban/strike to other mods.
--------1. Mods agree send their suggestion to LA
--------------------A. LA agrees, strike/ban gets enforced <no further action unless overturned>
----------------------------Rest of Admin overturn LA <no further action>
--------------------B. LA disagrees. <no further action unless overturned>
----------------------------Rest of Admin disagree, strike/ban enforced <no further action>
--------2. Mods do not agree, no further action.

We would also like to see a clear definition of what is to be moderated...

Since its can be so subjective we agreed that maybe it should remain unchanged from before... attacks, extreme flames, threats ext ... receive normal censure. Except ... we still retain the same sort of "attention to detail" in a more restrained fashion...

If a person spams a thread with pictures, the mod instead of taking the time to edit out the spam and send PMs to the poster would send a PM to the receiving party informing them (especially if they are new) "This type of behavior is subject to censure, do you want me to edit/remove the post?"

This gives the option for friends to be able to "rib" each other but still provides a "target" a way to combat flames/spam. It will show the target that the "powers that be" are willing to moderate if desired.

We also discussed the need to have the moderators be "masked" I don't have a huge passion either way, however I conceded to Swift that maybe it wouldn't hurt to "try" having the mods be revealed...worst case scenario it starts to fail, in which case Admin could easily conceal the identities again.

Anyway we know we don't make policy but we thought if we could offer a compromise between the pro moderation and pro freedom groups that maybe it would be helpful.

I also have to agree that the thread about someone's roleplaying should not have occured and should have been moderated.

Sorry Swift if I got it wrong, my brain was oatmeal after all, did I forget something?

P.S. Be aware that despite the good nature of Swift, the Magile and he are still in the developmental stages of creating a nefarious plan...

[Swift]

I am shocked to be saying this, but i heartily endorse this product and/or service.

Edit: For what its worth, this conversation stemmed mainly from one in Off Topic that was critical of a few particular edits, and how the moderation seems more focused on how you say something, rather than what is actually said, even if both are equally as 'offensive'.

Edit 2: The part from Nalos post i actually will comment on specifically is endorsing the idea of moderators PMing someone to offer them the chance to self moderate. While the forum user base is left completely in the dark without knowing any guidelines the moderators are following, i think a PM stating "I really think <insert> is <insert>. Id like you to reconsider your post otherwise i will need to moderate it" would reduce alot of the drama* surrounding the deeply flawed blitz we are seeing. Obviously in the cases of behavior that has always been against the rules (porn links, racial slurs, outright, direct abuse) an immediate edit would still be understandable by all people. While i personally feel the policy needs a wholesale rework to actually be effective (previous attempts failed because the policies were badly thought out, not because there was no Admin backing), interim measures to smooth things out while changes are made is the best way to go. Letting the flawed policy run as per current writing while changes are made is just going to make things worse.


* There was a distinct lack of Drama prior to the great moderator blitz starting (back to Rustys departure), we even got through a couple of elections without it coming up. Isn't it strange how trying to 'clean things up' via flawed policy has made it into what we don't want it to be?

[Hialmar]

Your memory is short Swift.

Just look into this forum before the moderation post by FI and you'll find a ton of flames, trolling and such.

You are talking about the last election so how about you just look into this thread:
http://www.alandfaraway.org/phpbbforum/ ... hp?t=39749
or this one:
http://www.alandfaraway.org/phpbbforum/ ... hp?t=39723
I'll stop here but you'll find tons of those.

As for your proposal NJ it is just too complex. ALFA has been said over and over to have too much administration and this just adds more.

We have to let this moderation solution run for a few months and hopefully things will go better. If it doesn't then maybe it is impossible to moderate this community and then maybe I have to go and find another one.

[Nalo Jade]

Your'e right Hialmar, there was still drama...

But I have to disagree with the last statement, from what I understood you signed some kind of 10 year contract or something with ALFA...

So too complex... Is there anywhere we could simplify it further?

Could we give the "pro-freedom" crowd an "Un-moderated Forum" enter at your own risk kinda place?

Just trying to think of how we might be able to meet a middle ground...

[psycho_leo]

We would like to see the process of the moderators with regards to dealing out temp bans and strikes to follow these lines...

--A Mod suggests ban/strike to other mods.
--------1. Mods agree send their suggestion to LA
--------------------A. LA agrees, strike/ban gets enforced <no>
----------------------------Rest of Admin overturn LA <no>
--------------------B. LA disagrees. <no>
----------------------------Rest of Admin disagree, strike/ban enforced <no>
--------2. Mods do not agree, no further action.

This is all described in the original annoucement thread, although it only makes direct reference to strikes, so things may be a bit unclear in regards to temp bans.

We would also like to see a clear definition of what is to be moderated...

Direct quote from the annoucement thread.

As to how/what will be moderated, please note the following sections of our very own Code of Conduct:
(bolding is mine)
Quote:
All ALFA members should behave in a manner that is respectful of every other member, whether player or DM, as acknowledgment of the effort that goes into building and maintaining this community. No member should abuse any other member, or the gameworld, or the community, for any reason.


And our Rulebook:

Quote:
6.1 Out-Of-Game Behaviour
There will be no inflammatory remarks made OOC towards anyone in the ALFA community in a public forum. ALFA forums and chat are public. While you can speak freely, rude or aggressive language is not allowed. You may not post any type of pornographic pictures, text, or links, or inflammatory or graphically violent references to nationality, race, culture, gender or creed. Admin or forum moderators decide what ‘inflammatory’ means. Vulgarity ingame—IC through your PC—can be RP, and our servers are private, but if a player asks you to stop a particular line of roleplay because it is more graphically or sexually detailed than they prefer, please honour that request. ALFA is a mature community, and maturity includes knowing when to stop.

I agree this is all quite subjective. But moderation, the way I see is something quite subjective. There's no way to clearly define what constitutes an offense in a community with such diversity as ours, simply because people have different tolerance thresholds and upbringings and will be offended by different things.

I don't feel the need to point names here, but one example is when I witnessed in chat a member get angry over a "your mom" joke. Most people take those as how they are meant, silly harmless jokes. Some, as that particular case showed, will take it seriously.

[Hialmar]

The pro-freedom people can just create a free forum somewhere there are tons of sites running that.
Just search for "phpbb free hosting" and you should be set.

And no I didn't sign any 10 years contract with ALFA

[Swift]

As for your proposal NJ it is just too complex. ALFA has been said over and over to have too much administration and this just adds more.

I can see why you passed this off to others Hialmar if you truely think this is complex.

Its simple: Moderators decide on the severity of punishment, LA says yes or no. In cases where a moderator is unclear or not entirely sure if a post should be modded, they send a PM asking for self moderation.

How is that 'too complex'?

We have to let this moderation solution run for a few months and hopefully things will go better. If it doesn't then maybe it is impossible to moderate this community and then maybe I have to go and find another one.

No, we won't, because it is the same flawed policy, with the same flawed implementation and the same flawed responses from Admin as we have had in the past. Letting it run its course for a few months isn't going to magically make it better or make the issues people have with it go away. The only saving grace it has is that it has not been extended to chat (yet).

The same complaints made in the 2005 thread (which Burt necroed to the front page before it was locked) are being made again, and Admin are responding with exactly the same: Silence.

I agree this is all quite subjective. But moderation, the way I see is something quite subjective. There's no way to clearly define what constitutes an offense in a community with such diversity as ours, simply because people have different tolerance thresholds and upbringings and will be offended by different things.

It has been said this blitz is being done in spite of the views of some that "this is how ALFA always has been". If they want to change how ALFA has always been into something different, they need guidelines for people to follow otherwise how are they meant to self moderate? I can guarantee that of all the posts edited/deleted by a mod so far, the posters of half likely didn't even entertain the thought that what they were posting would run afoul of the moderators, some of them being borderline and very nitpickish reasons.

Self moderation has always been, and will remain, the best, most drama free form of moderation. If the community is not going to be helped to do that, it will continue to be a contentious issue. Yes, we have what the charter or what have you says but, for example, what is an attack? If i call you naive for thinking something, is that an attack? What if i call the thought itself naive? What if i phrase it in a way to make it not actually sound like an attack at first glance, is that allowable? (For those interested, currently yes, that does pass muster for avoiding red text being inserted into your posts).

Not once, in any of the moderation attempts has a clear set of guidelines been posted that the moderators follow and that we as a community are advised to follow to avoid moderation.

The pro-freedom people can just create a free forum somewhere there are tons of sites running that.
Just search for "phpbb free hosting" and you should be set.

At this stage of things, i don't think pushing people out to get people in is a very bright strategy.

[Magile]

I can't really say I contributed to this conversation a whole lot. I mostly told Nalo to go to bed because he was pretty tired (as was I), amongst reading that article on trolls posted in off-topic.

[Hialmar]

I didn't passed it because I think it was too complex, I passed it because this tends to get my burn-o-meter to "let's run away from this awful place".

Admins are not silent as I'm proving it right now and before in the thread that got to the 10 page lock. Paazin and FI posted a lot as well.

It's not because we don't agree with you that we are silent.

We have spoken a lot before in the admin and HDM forums and we all (admin and HDMs) have decided that this was the only viable solution.

As for the complexity of this process: it will take days to go through all the steps that lead to some ass-hat getting a well deserved temp ban.
Meanwhile this guy will have made a lot more harm and will most probably earn one or more strikes.

[Lusipher]

Ok, all this is driving me nuts...

Guys and gals..everyone. Stop butting heads with this new policy. I know im not the best person to speak about whats right or wrong, but I do believe this policy needs to stand like it is. Quit debating this to death. ALFA needs to get back on its feet and concentrate on the game itself. If you cannot help with any of the things needed like building, scripting, hosting, or whatever...then discuss beta testing, quests, PrCs...anything but forum moderation.

We are wasting a lot of time and energy on something extremely superfical. If some of you would spend your time worrying more about helping getting a new server up and running as you do about being bitched out on by a moderator on these forums we would have 3 servers running by now.

Let it go. Stop fighting the moderation. Either you deal with it or please find another community to hang in. ALFA has degenerated into almost nothing and those who are doing a lot of the work are trying to hold it together. All this negative BS is just bringing them down. It is going to wear them down and people are going to give up. If you care about this community then please channel your energy into giving back to ALFA.

This is a waste of time to debate. Moderation isnt perfect and the mods havent done everything correctly, but its going to looked at and perfected. Nothing gets done over night. I dont always agree with what they are doing, but I agree that its needed for this project to get its collective head out of its rear end.

Stop talking and start doing something.

[Magile]

As for the complexity of this process: it will take days to go through all the steps that lead to some ass-hat getting a well deserved temp ban.
Meanwhile this guy will have made a lot more harm and will most probably earn one or more strikes.

Since we're semi-speaking about the rules, can I ask about what you said there? What I mean is, I see a lot of people getting away with phrases like that and similar phrases (which Swift and Nalo discussed last night) simply because they're generalized and not direct. They're still hostile comments, but since it's more of a broad insult, does that actually make them legit/allowed?

I only raise this question because, I had thought before, that any insulting at all was nixed (is that the right term?). I think sarcasm is moderated regardless of the specific target, because it can start flame wars/hostile attitudes simply based on the tone taken (it's looking that way from what I've seen, I mean). What's the thought on swearing/insulting with no real clarified in mind?

edit: I'm focusing on the semi-swearing, by the way. I understand the logic, it's just the word (at which I was under the impression would be moderated, but has proven me wrong several times).

[Swift]

I didn't passed it because I think it was too complex, I passed it because this tends to get my burn-o-meter to "let's run away from this awful place".

Admins are not silent as I'm proving it right now and before in the thread that got to the 10 page lock. Paazin and FI posted a lot as well.

It's not because we don't agree with you that we are silent.

The only concern that has been allayed in the entire 10 page thread and the few posts since have been the avenue of appeal for people who think they have been wronged.

Nothing about 3 non elected mods voting to hand out a strike requiring all 5 elected Admin to overturn the decision, nothing about clear, concise guildelines that the moderators are following, nothing about the ludicrous penalties for voicing disagreement with a moderators decision.

Not a single word since the lock was put in place, and as you will see in that thread, i am not alone in holding those as concerns.

As for the complexity of this process: it will take days to go through all the steps that lead to some ass-hat getting a well deserved temp ban.
Meanwhile this guy will have made a lot more harm and will most probably earn one or more strikes.

Uhhh...you do realize that the only 2 differences between what Nalo proposed and what you Admin and HDMs accepted is that a) Lead is not 100% bound to blindly agree with the councils recommendation and b) The Lead Admin alone can veto the councils recommendation for a strike, instead of requiring the entire Admin body.

So if Nalos would take too long, how is the currently accepted version going to be any quicker?

Edit: And i must echo Magiles query. Is it alright to throw out derogatory labels and insults if you dont target them at a specific person, as that has been going on quite a bit lately when people are voicing their opposition to this policy.

[Hialmar]

It will be the last time I post this (which I have posted already at least twice): LA can veto anything and anyone can appeal to the LA it's in the charter.

The biggest difference is that with our system we just have a one step vote in order to get a temp ban while in Nalo's system it needs two steps.
And of course if the LA is out of town it delays the temp ban a lot.

As for giving a detailed list of what can lead you to be moderated, it has been said again and again that this won't happen. You have what is written in the rule book PL quoted.
We don't want to write a detailed list because people will constantly argue over what is in the list and is not.
We have had some problems from "would-be" lawyers trying to squirt our rules by quoting and constantly arguing over them in the past.
This won't happen over moderation if we can avoid it.

Edit: if ass-hat needs to be moderated so be it. I won't mind.
Moderation applies to anyone including admins.

[Nalo Jade]

To follow suit with Swift's first post in this thread...

I can't believe I'm saying this but Dan is right. Swift, we submitted our "proposal" lets answer questions from the Admin about it or ask them like you did about whether it is really more complicated...

But lets not go into the whole thing, forever... we put up a proposal, if it gets shot down it gets shot down.

If we get derailed, we will talk about all the "in's and out's and what have you's, its complicated man."

[FanaticusIncendi]

What Hialmar said.

As soon as I have a spare moment I'm going to wordsmith the policy a tad to clarify some points/concerns of vague wording that were brought up in the original thread.

Other than that, it is what it is and it will be what it is until/unless the Administrators and HDMs get together again and change it. If the Admin flip around and change things they decide on every time someone says they don't like it or want to do it a different way then the admin would spend all their time changing the same damn thing over and over and nothing would ever get accomplished.

Further, you can't tell how well something will work in such a short amount of time. Have some patience.

I don't think that any of us are surprised that some people don't like the new policy. I think we pretty much expected that. "You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time".

I won't be commenting on this topic again.