Life In 19x19

One thing that really annoys me about L19 is how intransparent moderation is. Moderators delete posts and ban users without any public record.

I'd like a change of ToS in order to allow discussion of moderation issues (perhaps in a "Meta" subforum). I'd also like a thread in which moderators keep a public record of their major moderation decisions such as bans. When banning long standing community members, I think it's appropriate to publish the reasons and allow discussion of them.

(This thread isn't about particular moderator decisions, but about the policies on which moderators base their actions)

That sounds like a recipe for more public arguing. Have you ever seena forum that operates that way? All those that I participate in handle the matter privately.

Joaz, I'm a moderator on one that runs that similarly. The balance is between keeping things calm and allowing public input into decisions. Not allowing any public discussion of a ban or whatever isn't healthy in the long run, believe me some people can get very, very bitter if they feel they don't get to have their say. Then I'm talking about a large general interest forum rather than a special interest one.

Boidhre wrote:Joaz, I'm a moderator on one that runs that similarly...

Can you please post a link?

The site is large so it'll be hard to get a handle on things but how it works is:

Moderators always leave a public note when banning someone giving the reason.
Users cannot argue with moderators in threads where moderator action has happened.
There is a Feedback forum that can be used to discuss site moderation and similar.
There is a Dispute Resolution forum where users can challenge their bans publicly and have a "mod of mods" look at things.

Boidhre wrote:http://www.boards.ie

Thanks. I'll have a look and talk to Jordus.

BTW, my inclination would be to have two levels of membership: newbie and regular. Regular members would have full access to the forums where arguing is done. Newbies would not have access to those forums ( to prevent spammers they might have other limits too, such as no posting of links or images )
The primary difference would be that newbies would not be deluged with aguments when they first join. And guests would not see arguing when they are contemplating joining.

This initial appearance is currently a grave concern of mine.

Joaz Banbeck wrote:That sounds like a recipe for more public arguing. Have you ever seena forum that operates that way? All those that I participate in handle the matter privately.

Perhaps open two-way discussion about bans would lead to chaos (or not, but that's not my interest). However, even one-way communication from the admins to the users would be greatly appreciated by many. As it is now, it seems as if a certain prolific poster has dropped off the face of the earth without any explanation. If the user's post was a violation of the TOS in some particular way, then what great harm is there in at least stating that fact in the thread that resulted in the ban? It may deter similar behavior in the future. In fact, if his post elsewhere is to be believed, then he himself has not received any real explanation.

Honestly, I would even accept an explanation like "I will do what I want because this site is my private property." I strongly respect private property rights, even if the property is entirely digital. The recent decisions give the appearance of an attempt to hide an unscrupulous act. Of course, this may not be true, but appearances can be damaging even if they do not have basis in truth. Given the rather disappointing "bit censorship" incident and its rather murky conclusion, I think that users in this board have good reason to be suspicious of decisions like this.

That said, I still have some faith in the admins. They have righted other wrongs in the past. If they decide after a while that they made a mistake, I think that they will undo it.

Joaz Banbeck wrote:

Boidhre wrote:http://www.boards.ie

Thanks. I'll have a look and talk to Jordus.

BTW, my inclination would be to have two levels of membership: newbie and regular. Regular members would have full access to the forums where arguing is done. Newbies would not have access to those forums ( to prevent spammers they might have other limits too, such as no posting of links or images )
The primary difference would be that newbies would not be deluged with aguments when they first join. And guests would not see arguing when they are contemplating joining.

This initial appearance is currently a grave concern of mine.

The initial appearance is all in how the admins behave on the threads. If they come across as listening to and being concerned by the users' opinions then it reflects well on the forum. If they are clear and fair when banning someone similarly. If all you see is locked threads and one line replies from admins/mods then it's a mess.

I'll be honest, having to deal with public discussion of moderation is hard, having to publicly moderate other moderators is equally hard but both are important if a site's moderation is going to be seen as fair by the random browser.

lemmata wrote:... In fact, if his post elsewhere is to be believed, then he himself has not received any real explanation.

The poster in question received multiple warnings, more than the TOS required. When a ban was done, it was temporary, not permanent. An email and a PM was sent to him explaining this.

lemmata wrote:The recent decisions give the appearance of an attempt to hide an unscrupulous act...

Umm...no...the poster gave that impression on another web site. I was trying to handle it privately.

I really don't like the head-on-a-pike approach. It may deter others from doing the same, but it is not inviting to newcomers.

Good policy.

I currently have a private message to a presumably banned member pending. I have no obvious place to see whether he is banned at all, what for, for how long ... even without any discussion information would be valuable.

Joaz Banbeck wrote:The poster in question received multiple warnings, more than the TOS required. When a ban was done, it was temporary, not permanent. An email and a PM was sent to him explaining this.

If this is the case, then I think that it is good that you defended the admins' position on that aspect like you did there. Otherwise, people will get the wrong idea.

Joaz Banbeck wrote:Umm...no...the poster gave that impression on another web site. I was trying to handle in privately.

The general avoidance of the matter and the disappearance of a prolific poster was what gave this impression (combined with the fresh memory of the strange bit censorship incident), not that poster's words on another site. Those words only served to make people aware that he wasn't just on holiday.

Joaz Banbeck wrote:I really don't like the head-on-a-pike approach. It may deter others from doing the same, but it is not inviting to newcomers.

I appreciate that attitude toward moderation and the thought behind it. Public pillorying is not very pleasant. However, things don't have to be that extreme. Issuing a parking ticket publicly is not the same as putting that person in stocks and letting people throw tomatoes at him. These matters could be handled in a dry and procedural way (e.g., "Rule 9b was violated. 30 day ban. The end.")

I'm not entirely sure what's going on...

I've been on forums of all kinds over the years... I was browsing the web just about as soon as GIFs became a thing. Embedded MIDIs were everywhere and trolling and lolcat were not yet things.

On the forums I've seen, moderators operate individually concerning small decisions such as banning users, locking threads and editing/deleting posts. They do so in reference to laid-down rules. Sometimes they abuse their power. Sometimes they make bad decisions. I've never been a mod (nor would I want to be one), so I don't know what it's like.

In the wake of SOPA and other freedom of access to information issues, I can also understand that 'the people' want transparency.

Yet I don't see the need for this sort of large-scale witch hunt. Robert claims to have been banned. Banning happens. Threads are being locked. This happens too. There's a movement going through the L19 community, but it all seems so extreme to me.

Case and point, Joaz has intervened multiple times stating that he would like for these issues to be addressed in private. The forum rules (to which we all agree to follow) cover most of the cases seen here. Requests can simply be made of the admins, in private. The admins simply have power and are using this power as they see fit. As they run this forum, one would expect them to make the best choices as benefit the forum as a whole.

Whether one thinks they're abusing their power or keeping secrets, the truth is it doesn't matter. They are in charge and I for one am sure that they would regret having to take a firmer grip on the forum. No part of the rules state that you have to trust them. So do, or don't. Bottom line, we have to accept their decisions, or they might be forced to do something drastic.

Some of you might realize this post is very similar to one I've posted within the last couple weeks. I just want to do my part to keep the forum in one piece. If there's a problem, refer to the ToS. If the ToS doesn't cover it, speak directly with an admin.

Please, everyone. I don't want to see L19 crash and burn...

Phoenix wrote:Yet I don't see the need for this sort of large-scale witch hunt.

I think that you are blowing the requests for more transparency way out of proportion here. I certainly don't see anything close to a witch hunt here. I certainly hope that the admins take these posts as friendly suggestions rather than personal attacks. The case could be made (and has been made by Boihdre) that these suggestions could save the admins some other headaches down the road.

Phoenix wrote:No part of the rules state that you have to trust them.

I trust the admins (for the most part, anyways). That said, a a community is always a more enjoyable one when its members trust its leaders. The value of participating in any community is reduced when trust is lowered.

Phoenix wrote:Bottom line, we have to accept their decisions, or they might be forced to do something drastic.

I also do not see any way in which we cannot accept their decisions. Furthermore, I am sympathetic to the fact that forum moderation is a thankless and time-consuming task, which often necessitates summary decisions. So we agree on that point. However, it is precisely because we have to accept their decisions that people are making the case for more transparency instead of making funny faces at them.

I have made my case (as have others) and will let the suggestions stand as they are now without future addenda. If the admins feel that they should adopt some of them, then that is great. If not, then so be it. I will accept it and move on; I am not the type to argue about such things into infinity and beyond. However, I do not think that a culture of complete silence is especially healthy. Even if we are willing to accept and move on, voicing ideas for improvement before we do that seems like a good thing.

Phoenix wrote:Banning happens. Threads are being locked. This happens too.

Agreed.
Just as people commenting about all that. And complaining. That happens too. And I bet it did happen way back when when gifs were just becoming 'the thing'. I seem to remember it used to happen A LOT more than now.

In general, internet (and forums in particular) is where people can speak out their minds. So we do, and it is good.

I don't really get the point of your post. Like - people should not speak? Not criticize? Not disagree? Only disagree a little at a time?
What are you trying to say?

PS>
Yes, Joaz said this should be taken in private. Obviously, (some) people disagree. He is an admin - he can enforce his will and the rules. Or he can listen to what people say. Maybe they can convince him. Or maybe he can convince them. Who knows, maybe the horse will sing...

I think it is generally a good idea to let the community have input into how a forum is run. Even if this input gets ignored for whatever reason.