I'll throw a coin onto the "Be more specific when you remove a post". Send a PM to the poster(s) who have had their posts removed and explain WHY.
Because as-is you generally remove a post for one of a few reasons: It is rude, it is off-topic, or it REPLIED to a rude post. And all get the same message.
That last one is particularly frustrating, because it is potentially scrubbing out large SWATHES of conversation because they sprung up from replying to a post you consider a "jerk post", or making the parts of the conversation that weren't scrubbed impossible to follow (since they were all following off of that first "jerk" post).
I don't think your policy of scrubbing any post that might be considered rude to be helpful. It covers the problem, doesn't fix it. Because when a post is removed, people are left wondering what exactly was so wrong with it. And sometimes it's very minor things that struck a nerve with someone on the mod team in particular.
If you can't tell WHY a post was removed, you can't avoid doing it in the future. I've had posts removed that I still to this day can't figure out why they were removed and following the suggestion to email the webmaster is, inevitably, met with silence. For ANY reason, be it asking about a moderating policy or requesting that a game I had taken over from another poster be swapped over to my control.
What I'm saying is, the moderation team needs to communicate more with the community here. It'll help a LOT more in the long run than simply deleting anything you find offensive or rude.
I'm not sure how much extra work this would entail, but on the user end I agree this would be good.
I recently saw a bunch of people claiming to have been temporarily banned from Paizo's forums "for daring to criticise the playtest" or similar. I didnt see the presumed furore leading up to the bans, but I'd bet London to a brick it wasn't for criticising the playtest. My guess would be it was continuing to post in a certain vein after being asked not to, but irrespective it would be helpful to be told exactly why editorial or punitive action was being taken.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
They have been getting pretty hostile and childlike for a while now. I'm all in favor of stricter moderation.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm with cheapy. More frequent timeouts or other consequences might get some people to back off.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The only thing I can add is more concise forums rules, and maybe to start taking a lot at posters who flag others often for possibly getting banned rather than removing the flagged posts (on a case by case basis obviously). Far, far too often people (and admittedly so), just flag posts that show opinions, facts, or beliefs that they don't like or can not argue against and just start flagging posts, both to have a given removed and also to get otherwise friendly threads locked.
For the Rules forums, I think the two biggest contributing factors to most of the arguments there is 1.) that people assume that their house rules are the norm, (or more likely that their playstyle is the basis for everyone) or 2.) the fact that Paizo really does have a lot of issue just answering questions. The most recent playtest forums and long thread bout if firing multiple arrows into a melee provoked multiple AoOs comes to mind. A lot of people sort of get this idea (and I'm not meaning I'm myself immune to this) that their single understanding of something is the one true rational possibility, and thus everyone else that disagrees is stupid and wrong, (and irrational for even thinking otherwise). Add in that there is sometimes a big difference between Pathfinder itself and PFS, or even Pathfinder, PFS, and Golarion, as well as different staff saying different, sometime contradictory things, doesn't help either.
As was braught up a few times in the Mod bias thread, (ironically which got locked), I don't think that removing posts is a good idea, and really doesn't help anyone. Especially if the explanation is something like "please revisit the forum rules". It doesn't indicate which of the rules was "broken" for the poster that did it, (and thus if it wasn't intentional, doesn't allow them to fix the issue), and it doesn't give anyone else a clue as to what is wrong. "Off-Topic" is probably the worst offender here.
I recently saw a bunch of people claiming to have been temporarily banned from Paizo's forums "for daring to criticise the playtest" or similar. I didnt see the presumed furore leading up to the bans, but I'd bet London to a brick it wasn't for criticising the playtest. My guess would be it was continuing to post in a certain vein after being asked not to, but irrespective it would be helpful to be told exactly why editorial or punitive action was being taken.
Oh, there was plenty of explanation for that one, because it wasn't the moderation team who did it. That was all SKR. Whatever else I have to say about the guy, he responds to e-mails.
I was temp banned for making an off-hand remark about "The weapon that must not be named" (brass knuckles) as part of a much larger post explaining a problem with the Brawler's design, and why shutting down discussion about a potential solution out of hand wasn't helpful. Which then proceeded to list off 3 or 4 more solutions, but none of that mattered of course because the general policy is "If I find one thing in your large post disrespectful I'll scrub the whole thing".
Which is sort of what you said, but given his overall tone in the Brawler thread, I don't feel like saying "Banned for criticizing the playtest" is far off the mark either.
But that's not a problem with the moderator team in this case, at all. I very rarely see, say, Chris Lambertz doing something like that and the isolated incidents I do see probably have an explanation I don't know about.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Don't be a jerk" is short and concise, if slightly subjective. Long rules are bad, in this case, because gamers gonna game. If you give rules, they will find loopholes and exploits.
As far as 'strictly enforced', I unfortunately don't think Paizo has enough moderators for (or rather, enough moderator time) to drink from that particular firehose.
When I have done moderation in the past, my number one priority has been bandwidth control. No matter how poor someone's behavior is, if you periodically throttle their posting ability, they won't do that much damage. If someone won't or can't control their posting, they tend to eventually get frustrated about getting tempbanned for days at a time, and look for greener pastures.
On the other side, no matter how "nice" a community is, it can become unattractive to new posters if it gets over-run with low weight posts and clique formation.
If you focus on bandwidth, especially back-and-forth posting, you don't have to worry as much about community standards, politeness, larger issues of ethics, etc. By taking specific, short-term actions of this kind, you can also be more active in asserting what you consider good and righteous posting behavior, without worrying as much about whether your moderators all share exactly the same values or how consistent they are.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Don't be a jerk" is short and concise, if slightly subjective. Long rules are bad, in this case, because gamers gonna game. If you give rules, they will find loopholes and exploits.
Eh? That seems a poor excuse.
Finding "loopholes" only works if you let people use them. You hold them to the spirit of the rules, not the letter.
"Don't be a jerk" isn't just SLIGHTLY subjective, it is 100% entirely subjective. The definition varies from person to person, even among the mods.
Some of the mods rarely remove posts at all, only scrubbing the ones with overt insults or ones that are thinly veiled if that. To them, that's being a jerk.
Some mods scrub any post containing sarcasm, because to them being sarcastic is always jerk-ish behavior.
Some mods scrub posts disagreeing with them on matters of social policy (feminism, sexuality, etc.) because they see their view as correct and anyone who disagrees shouldn't be allowed to speak out.
That's three very different "definitions" of jerk, and gives three very conflicting messages. The rule is bad. Because it's not a rule, it's a challenge.
"Guess the behavior I don't like. Go on, I dare you."
"Don't be a jerk" is short and concise, if slightly subjective. Long rules are bad, in this case, because gamers gonna game. If you give rules, they will find loopholes and exploits.
As far as 'strictly enforced', I unfortunately don't think Paizo has enough moderators for (or rather, enough moderator time) to drink from that particular firehose.
With a little code, I'm sure Paizo's database is rich enough to create a Naive Bayes classifier that could pick out posts that are likely to require moderation.
The problem is very similar to filtering spam e-mail. Except here it's a toxic post (and not a Viagra advertisement) that requires filtering. The significant difference here is that Paizo has an exceptional corpus of well labelled data, including hand-moderated posts and community flagging data. Pretty much exactly what you want for building a classifier.
I'd be surprised if the classifier couldn't pick out 95% of the posts that required moderation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Don't be a jerk" is short and concise, if slightly subjective. Long rules are bad, in this case, because gamers gonna game. If you give rules, they will find loopholes and exploits.
As far as 'strictly enforced', I unfortunately don't think Paizo has enough moderators for (or rather, enough moderator time) to drink from that particular firehose.With a little code, I'm sure Paizo's database is rich enough to create a Naive Bayes classifier that could pick out posts that are likely to require moderation.
The problem is very similar to filtering spam e-mail. Except here it's a toxic post (and not a Viagra advertisement) that requires filtering. The significant difference here is that Paizo has an exceptional corpus of well labelled data, including hand-moderated posts and community flagging data. Pretty much exactly what you want for building a classifier.
I'd be surprised if the classifier couldn't pick out 95% of the posts that required moderation.
Heck, I can think of a few users that could be used to train it for toxic posts.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, my "solution" to this problem is that I pretty much just avoid the Rules and Advice forums as much as possible.
There toxic pedantry abounds.
I have more enjoyable things to do with my time than to deal with so many jerks.
"Don't be a jerk" works for me.
Frankly, the fact that we're arguing over the rules about the rules here shows that the problem may be intractable, and that the only solution for enforcement is 100% subjective.
TL/DR: Paizo-- carry on!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I know the Paizo does not like banning people, maybe because a ban blocks complete access to the site. <---Don't quote me on that.
But if you can block someone from the message boards without stopping them from shopping here I don't see why it should not be done. Right now there is no consequences for childish behavior other than erasing a post or blocking a topic.
I think that the idea that you can make the internet a nicer place is just naive. I also don't beloved that you can try to codify the correct way to debate a forum.
That said, I agree with the positions presented by many people here. It can be frustrating, from both sides.
I myself do not like it when people complain that someone is discussing a topic that has been discussed before. Then next week I get annoyed that the topic has been discussed 4 times in that week. So for that type of situation, I think people just need to relax and if you are not interested in a discussion, move on.
The same goes for lengthy discussions as well. Some people like to debate and discuss the rules, not just read quotes about them. That is what a rules forum is for, in my opinion.
Finally, I think self-community moderation is a strong tool. Allow the community to police itself. What works for each forum will then become the norm decided by those that frequent it most. I think the best way to technically do this is by taking a page from Yahoo, of all places. Allow posts to be disliked and change favorite to like. Once a post gains too many dislikes (or dislike ratio) hide it. Don't remove it, just hide it, like the spoiler feature of a post. Of course, continue to remove blatantly inappropriate posts.
I think this will allow real community input towards moderation, yet severely limit the ability for a rogue element to interfere with the forums.
Of course, but as you talk in private to more and more people on the forums, certain repeat offenders pop up again and again and again :-)
What I mean is, Im sure a many people have their own lists of repeat offenders, but the lists are going to be very different.I think what Cheapy meant is that he's seen many people's "lists" and there are certain folks who appear on nearly every list.
Precisely this.
For example, three or four years ago, just about everyone's list would have contained Cartigan.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think that the idea that you can make the internet a nicer place is just naive.
I disagree with this. We're not looking to make "the internet" a nicer place. We're looking to not have this section of the internet continue to behave in a manner that is unfriendly, unhelpful, and generally antagonistic. Just because other sites allow people to do whatever doesn't mean that Paizo should throw their hands up.
As Cheapy has mentioned, there are some usual suspects that are going to turn up. Perhaps there should be a limit to the number of times you have posts removed before you are asked to get out of the proverbial pool and sit on the side for a while until you can behave.
This isn't a case of a few new people wandering in and causing a ruckus. This is people that have been here a while and know how to behave, but gosh darnit that other guy said something that is wrong so I just HAVE to call them names and berate them over and over.
Posters following each other to other threads and attacking/needling/generally harassing each other should stop, and that's the lion's share of the issues IMO. You don't like Bob and think Bob is a troll and don't like the threads he makes? Stay out of them. Wow. Hard.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some mods scrub posts disagreeing with them on matters of social policy (feminism, sexuality, etc.) because they see their view as correct and anyone who disagrees shouldn't be allowed to speak out.
I would like to point out that sexism and bigotry are listed as things not to do in the long version of the messageboard rules, and refer you to this.
'Don't be a jerk' shouldn't be hard. A messageboard is a big room full of strangers, like a party, or a Con. It shouldn't be harder to be civil and polite online than in person, but somehow it is. And then you have to deal with the people who would, in fact, be a jerk to your face.
I really don't think the problem is with the rules. I think it is with enforcement. To revisit the party (or Con) analogy, at a certain point the host (or staff) needs to take a more aggressive stand in showing people the door when they are excessively disruptive. Not necessarily because they're responsible for the actions of others, but to prevent the pleasant people from leaving instead.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For the issues with the Rules forum, it would be nice to see some sort of mechanism for curation of rules questions and their answers. Like maybe an upvote/downvote system to promote the posts which answer the question. Sort of like Stack Overflow.
As it is right now, the Rules Forum is the place where good questions go to die, as well as clog up the search function for future users with rules questions. I wonder how many hours the Pathfinder community has wasted wading through so many useless and misleading posts in the Rules forum.
-Matt
I think that the idea that you can make the internet a nicer place is just naive.
I have seen people toe the line once the hand of God came down in other forums.
Now admittedly the place was only nicer because certain posters were eliminated not because anyone changed but it did get results.
For the issues with the Rules forum, it would be nice to see some sort of mechanism for curation of rules questions and their answers. Like maybe an upvote/downvote system to promote the posts which answer the question. Sort of like Stack Overflow.
As it is right now, the Rules Forum is the place where good questions go to die, as well as clog up the search function for future users with rules questions. I wonder how many hours the Pathfinder community has wasted wading through so many useless and misleading posts in the Rules forum.
-Matt
As a SO user, I'd like to add that would be pretty darned useful. There's almost a case (and probably a much stronger practical implementation one) for having it separate to the forums themselves, as rules are really something you want to find an answer to, rather than having to read pages of back-and-forth opinion. Post question, propose answers, vote. It could also reduce some of the pressure on the design team and the FAQ, as some people may well be more inclined to accept the popular answer (or to read down the list to find the one they're happy to use) as a definitive one (even if it isn't necessarily a canonical one.)
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Post question, propose answers, vote. It could also reduce some of the pressure on the design team and the FAQ, as some people may well be more inclined to accept the popular answer (or to read down the list to find the one they're happy to use) as a definitive one (even if it isn't necessarily a canonical one.)
I dunno, I've seen an awful lot of topics where a couple of people proposed one answer, were met with a parade of (typically disrespectful) folks with the opposite opinion, and then a FAQ comes out that shows the minority to have been right all along. That's something I've seen enough times for your idea to make me really nervous.
Post question, propose answers, vote. It could also reduce some of the pressure on the design team and the FAQ, as some people may well be more inclined to accept the popular answer (or to read down the list to find the one they're happy to use) as a definitive one (even if it isn't necessarily a canonical one.)I dunno, I've seen an awful lot of topics where a couple of people proposed one answer, were met with a parade of (typically disrespectful) folks with the opposite opinion, and then a FAQ comes out that shows the minority to have been right all along. That's something I've seen enough times for your idea to make me really nervous.
Given all the chatter in the rules forum is really good for is for people to express (often unwanted) opinions, I'm unconvinced that is necessarily a bad thing. If the high voted answer turns out to be canonically incorrect if an when there's an FAQ entry, so be it. People are equally free to read down the list and find the one that suits them rather than taking the most popular.
I would, however, suggest not having the comments part of SO - I agree those disrespectful opinions just don't have a place. Just post an answer and let people vote. Or even remove the vote part as well (actually I think removing downvoting would be essential in our particular environment, due to gameplay styles often having such differing opinions, just keep it to "how many people thought this answer would work for them",) and keep it as a list of "the way I do it is...". The discussion part could also be hidden behind an extra click if it absolutely has to be there, but I'd certainly like to see the viable answers presented before the 90 page discussion on which ones are horrible ones and why.
The main issue for me is that I don't think a forum presents the right structure for rules questions. At the very least, there should be a way to sort them by book+chapter to get them in some kind of order - For the majority of people looking for an answer to a question, chronological order of last post is quite possibly the worst of all possible alternatives.
Top of my list: Being able to find the answer to your question easily, and making rules questions+answers a usable resource rather than a battlefield of opinion posts arguing back and forth (especially when in many cases they're *all* correct ways to do something.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some mods scrub posts disagreeing with them on matters of social policy (feminism, sexuality, etc.) because they see their view as correct and anyone who disagrees shouldn't be allowed to speak out.I would like to point out that sexism and bigotry are listed as things not to do in the long version of the messageboard rules, and refer you to this.
The problem being that sexism means different things to different people.
I think it means you shouldn't discriminate between the sexes, or objectify women (though objectifying means different things to different people as well).
Some people think it means I should constantly be "checking my male privilege", or take it upon myself to be offended FOR other people, rather than be offended because I actually find something offensive.
I don't agree with the latter interpretation.
Rest of the reply in a new post, since I've learned my lesson about putting anything vaguely controversial in a post I spent more than 5 minutes writing.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
'Don't be a jerk' shouldn't be hard. A messageboard is a big room full of strangers, like a party, or a Con. It shouldn't be harder to be civil and polite online than in person, but somehow it is. And then you have to deal with the people who would, in fact, be a jerk to your face.
I really don't think the problem is with the rules. I think it is with enforcement. To revisit the party (or Con) analogy, at a certain point the host (or staff) needs to take a more aggressive stand in showing people the door when they are excessively disruptive. Not necessarily because they're responsible for the actions of others, but to prevent the pleasant people from leaving instead.
And I still think it's with the rules, and HOW they're enforced.
The rules are too loose, which basically means the mod team is running around the forum going "Do I like this post? Nah. Scrub it."
And it's not to say they're bad mods, or bad people. They're not. But the "jerk rule" doesn't just encourage that, it almost necessitates it.
Stricter rules leads to easier enforcing, leads to people knowing where the lines are. Vague rules are almost as bad as unwritten rules. If nobody knows the exact rules, not everybody's going to follow them.
You can't toe the line if the line is invisible. Some people might get it right by accident, sure, but not everyone's going to pick the right spot to stand.
And this isn't even saying you need some grand manifesto of rules, or even to change the rules you have now.
Here. I'm a moderator on a small forum, I'll post the simple set of rules we've got.
The rules for this board are as follows:
1) No personal, directed insults.
2) Don't be a douchebag.
3) Don't start fights. Both/All parties will be held accountable. Arguing a point is allowed provided the discussion is kept civil.
4) Be wary of posting objectionable content:
--4.1) Politics goes in the politics thread. This is for civil discussion.
--4.2) Controversial topics go in the Saloon, a forum made to house questionable content.*
--4.3) Adult topics also go in the Saloon.*
--4.4) Gore, Shock images, Disgusting posts, and other posts made to be purposefully objectionable belong nowhere and should not be posted at all.
5) Extremely off topic, random, or very low content posts are discouraged, and repeat offenses may constitute spamming, resulting in administrative action.
7) Flame baiting, or posting content with knowledge that it may cause negative reactions is discouraged.
6) No backseat moderating. Do not begin arguments, or "call out" a poster in a public thread. Report it, and move on, or contact an admin directly if necessary.
Which is basically "Don't be a jerk" as an actual set of rules people can look to.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Post question, propose answers, vote. It could also reduce some of the pressure on the design team and the FAQ, as some people may well be more inclined to accept the popular answer (or to read down the list to find the one they're happy to use) as a definitive one (even if it isn't necessarily a canonical one.)I dunno, I've seen an awful lot of topics where a couple of people proposed one answer, were met with a parade of (typically disrespectful) folks with the opposite opinion, and then a FAQ comes out that shows the minority to have been right all along. That's something I've seen enough times for your idea to make me really nervous.
I do share the same concerns, but there are some times where the community really is correct. Like the time a thread went on for 4 pages trying to convince the question asker (who clearly made the question to get support for his interpretation) that rogues could sneak attack more than once per round.
If it's something that's more subtle, then yea, probably best not to do something like this. There was a thread a few years ago where people were trying to show why each arrow doesn't provoke when fired, and they were actually convincing people that was the case, when the rules, while slightly ambiguous, weren't meant to be that way. (This thread also used twisting James' words, but that's another topic.)
Or that freaking Sunder thread. What a mess! Some people left that thread convinced that an attack action was something new.
But...one very rarely needs The Correct Answer As Handed Down From On High By Jason Bulmahn. If the community is 95% unanimous, then chances are they're right. In most of the cases I mentioned, it was something like 60/40, rather than 95/5, and I don't quite trust the community at that point. Eloquence can oftentimes be mistaken for "correctness", just as "making the most noise" can as well. And the 95/5 cases are actually pretty rare for a number of reasons, not the least the ambiguity of the English language, and the multitude of rules with sometimes different connotations for the same word choice.
I'm getting off topic. I'm gonna hit Submit Post now.
I think that the idea that you can make the internet a nicer place is just naive.I disagree with this. We're not looking to make "the internet" a nicer place. We're looking to not have this section of the internet continue to behave in a manner that is unfriendly, unhelpful, and generally antagonistic. Just because other sites allow people to do whatever doesn't mean that Paizo should throw their hands up.
Is that really the only part of my post that you got?
But many are spouting just that. Many of the posts that I was responding to were not about removing/reprimanding blatant jerks, but about wording and inflection.
An example I have seen many times is BlackBloodTroll - without speaking for him, I have seen quite a few times where his posts have been read as rude and baiting whereas he was just making a point without going into an APA style report to ensure proper etiquette.
Just 30 seconds ago I saw a post from Jiggy stating that a person should not say something to the effect of, "Paizo doesn't think monks should be able to enhance unarmed strike without the Amulet of Mighty Fists" and should say something to the effect of, "There is no way to enhance unarmed strike without the Amulet of Mighty Fists."
That is what I meant by trying to make the internet nicer. The original poster didn't say anything mean, condescending or even slightly untrue.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Get ignore function, use ignore function, blood pressure drops, less mod time wasted.
Someone copy paste this so someone will see it.
Guys?
Guys?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The rules are too loose, which basically means the mod team is running around the forum going "Do I like this post? Nah. Scrub it."
As a former mod, this is not how it works.
Which is basically "Don't be a jerk" as an actual set of rules people can look to.
I think if 'don't be a jerk' is too vague for a given poster, more explicit rules aren't going to help. Even the rules you post have 'don't be a douchebag' as a catch-all for jerky behavior not specifically prohibited, which actually makes it just like the Paizo rules. Because if you take a look at the FAQ, there are specific examples of things that are not allowed, like bigotry or posting copyrighted content.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Draconian" is always a fun accusatory term. I also enjoy "narcissistic," "jackbooted," "totalitarian," "misanthropic," "demented" and "abominable".Pathfinder: enhancing your vocabulary!
Verdigris filigree!
But...one very rarely needs The Correct Answer As Handed Down From On High By Jason Bulmahn. If the community is 95% unanimous, then chances are they're right. In most of the cases I mentioned, it was something like 60/40, rather than 95/5. And the 95/5 cases are actually pretty rare for a number of reasons, not the least the ambiguity of the English language, and the multitude of rules with sometimes different connotations for the same word choice.
I certainly agree with that - the only thing that ought to matter is that people get an answer they can use (admittedly for some people that means it "has to be official") - I'd just like to see those few posts where someone has given a usable answer up front, rather than having to wade through pages of opinions and argument. I'd like to click on a rules question and the first thing I get is a page of the suggested answers the community has come up with. I can then pick the answer I like the best and use it.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The rules are too loose, which basically means the mod team is running around the forum going "Do I like this post? Nah. Scrub it."As a former mod, this is not how it works.
It basically is. It's filtered through your brain, where you (hopefully) give it somewhat of an objective look, see if it's breaking guidelines or it just bothers YOU, but at the end of the day what caught your attention probably wasn't "This post is breaking a guideline" (because there are very few guidelines here) it was "I don't like this post. Let me take a closer look at it".
Or in the case of one former employee, "I don't like this poster, let me see if I can find an excuse".
I think if 'don't be a jerk' is too vague for a given poster, more explicit rules aren't going to help. Even the rules you post have 'don't be a douchebag' as a catch-all for jerky behavior not specifically prohibited, which actually makes it just like the Paizo rules.
Sorta yes, sorta no. Everything below that is basically an elaboration of what we mean by "douchebag" (which I actually thought was censored on this forum). But our rules have gone through several revisions as new behaviors have come up that are disruptive but weren't previously a problem ("Extremely off topic, random, or very low content posts are discouraged, and repeat offenses may constitute spamming, resulting in administrative action." aka the "No s@&~posting rule").
Because if you take a look at the FAQ, there are specific examples of things that are not allowed, like bigotry or posting copyrighted content.
Some yes, but:
1.) They are not the first thing that pops up. Just the "most important rule".
2.) They're not particularly specific in some cases.
3.) And this is the big one: They don't cover the problems we're discussing here (which would basically be rules #1, #3, and #7 on our forum). To the point where calling someone out on trolling/flamebaiting is seen as "jerk" behavior and posts are generally scrubbed for it, while the flamebait is usually left intact.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Or in the case of one former employee, "I don't like this poster, let me see if I can find an excuse".
I disagree with your assessment, here, just as I disagree about your comments on sexism and other mods.
I'm not making this post to debate with you, but because I've realized this indicates a more general problem of transparency. Because if you believe these things to be true, it causes the same lack of trust as if it actually were true, and that lack of trust is bad for the messageboards. So I have a suggestion (or at least something to think about) for Paizo:
In the past, removed posts have been completely invisible, and the moderator comments about what was removed deliberately vague to avoid public shaming. Maybe some public shame would be helpful. Maybe more public information about who and what were cleaned up will give people a more accurate impression of what the mods did and why.
This could mean anything from increasing the detail of mod posts e.g. "I removed some posts from <Poster X> because <reason>. Replies to that post have also been removed." Or displaying placeholders (with or without avatars) for removed posts.
I realize Paizo doesn't want to give trolls a 'score' they can visibly increase (like number of removed posts), but frankly anyone who seems to be trying to run that up should just be banned instead of trying to socially engineer them into better behavior.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hey guys, I'd rather we stuck to coming up with ideas to improve the situation, rather than turning this into a heated debate. There are some really good suggestions and valid points made here so far, though I haven't been able to respond directly to some just yet. I can say that: we're likely not going to have additional mods to handle spam (especially since we now have a new tool to deal with them), we're not super keen on editing posts as a method of moderation (we feel like it's counter intuitive to positive interactions within the community and we'd rather not alter the words that other people have said), and we have no plans for an ignore feature. I agree that we could be more transparent in some areas.
I disagree with your assessment, here, just as I disagree about your comments on sexism and other mods.
The latter isn't so much a malicious (merely, at the risk of sounding condescending, well intentioned but misguided?) and rarely comes up, I'm not so peeved by it even if it is true.
The former, though, I wholeheartedly think is true, given the e-mails that accompanied the removed posts/temp bans and a post on the forum in which he said "I'm glad I can finally drop the pretense [of being polite], it's liberating" .
But I'll drop it. Not really a productive part of this conversation.
I'm not making this post to debate with you, but because I've realized this indicates a more general problem of transparency. Because if you believe these things to be true, it causes the same lack of trust as if it actually were true, and that lack of trust is bad for the messageboards. So I have a suggestion (or at least something to think about) for Paizo:
In the past, removed posts have been completely invisible, and the moderator comments about what was removed deliberately vague to avoid public shaming. Maybe some public shame would be helpful. Maybe more public information about who and what were cleaned up will give people a more accurate impression of what the mods did and why.
This could mean anything from increasing the detail of mod posts e.g. "I removed some posts from <Poster X> because <reason>. Replies to that post have also been removed." Or displaying placeholders (with or without avatars) for removed posts.
I realize Paizo doesn't want to give trolls a 'score' they can visibly increase (like number of removed posts), but frankly anyone who seems to be trying to run that up should just be banned instead of trying to socially engineer them into better behavior.
I agree with all of this. Transparency helps. Even something as simple as sending a PM with an explanation for WHY posts were removed helps a LOT, but may be more work in the long run than tweaking the system so removed posts aren't completely hidden (just User Name followed by *Post was removed by moderator for breaking X guideline* or something).
Maybe it's embarrassing, I dunno, but IMO being a little embarrassed is better than being frustrated.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hey guys, I'd rather we stuck to coming up with ideas to improve the situation, rather than turning this into a heated debate. There are some really good suggestions and valid points made here so far, though I haven't been able to respond directly to some just yet. I can say that: we're likely not going to have additional mods to handle spam (especially since we now have a new tool to deal with them), we're not super keen on editing posts as a method of moderation (we feel like it's counter intuitive to positive interactions within the community and we'd rather not alter the words that other people have said), and we have no plans for an ignore feature. I agree that would could be more transparent in some areas.
To clarify: when we speak of editing posts, or at least when I do, what I mean is something like this:
"I say to you sir, thy mother's pick-up line last night was lacking in eloquence and class."
and instead of deleting the post, it'd read:
"[SCRUBBED]" or "[REDACTED]" or whatever, probably in bright red. This clearly shows those involved in the thread that there was a bad post, explains gaps in the conversation, and lets the poster who MADE the post see that the mods don't consider it acceptable.
we're not super keen on editing posts as a method of moderation (we feel like it's counter intuitive to positive interactions within the community and we'd rather not alter the words that other people have said)
I think you may want to consider editing insofar as "partial deletion" as a better alternative to blanket hiding.
EX (and this is a scenario that comes up fairly often):
Insulting words galore
Don't do that.
On topic conversation.
I agree/disagree with your points, because of reasons.
With current policy, the entire post gets removed. Somewhat frustrating if you made an off-hand remark to something that needed to be scrubbed in the same post you just finished writing your thesis on why Rogues are UP or whatever.
However, if you instead EDIT the post, removing the quoted bit and the bits replying to it, but leaving the rest intact, it fixes the problem (the problematic bit still being visible) without scrubbing the rest of the post and causing some of the aforementioned frustration.
|
|
And I still think it's with the rules, and HOW they're enforced.
The rules are too loose, which basically means the mod team is running around the forum going "Do I like this post? Nah. Scrub it."
And it's not to say they're bad mods, or bad people. They're not. But the "jerk rule" doesn't just encourage that, it almost necessitates it.
Stricter rules leads to easier enforcing, leads to people knowing where the lines are. Vague rules are almost as bad as unwritten rules. If nobody knows the exact rules, not everybody's going to follow them.
You can't toe the line if the line is invisible. Some people might get it right by accident, sure, but not everyone's going to pick the right spot to stand.
I agree. Over in the Mod Bias thread (I believe) a few of the mods even mentioned that sometimes, when a lot of Flags Posts are being hit, they can't really even read the posts sometimes, (there are too many, in addition to them having other things to do), and well, certain Mods bias. I run a (smaller) forum as well, and put similar rules.
"Forum rules
Golden Rule: Don't be a jerk/douche!
Discussing Religion, Politics, Culture, topics on racism, sexism, and similar topics are allowed. However, trolling, inciting arguments, being an ass, or using (ANY of) those topics to trash or bash other people, and being a jerk is not. PERIOD."
I realized that no one is going to have the same idea on religion, politics, sexism, etc. . ., or more importantly, being from different countries, cultures, and , but I think that everyone knows what is bashing or trashing others, regardless of what you believe about a given topic. I also made sure to include that trolling and instigating where a NoGo at this station. I've been a mod a few other times, and basically, the less clear a rule is, the less useful it is for anyone, Mod or poster.
A lot of people also tend to think along the lines of "Well it's Common Sense". The thing about that is, you can basically translate it to mean, "Well, I understand what I mean, but not enough to explain it to anyone else".
|
|
"[SCRUBBED]" or "[REDACTED]" or whatever, probably in bright red. This clearly shows those involved in the thread that there was a bad post, explains gaps in the conversation, and lets the poster who MADE the post see that the mods don't consider it acceptable.
The immediate issues I see with that is that still, no one else knows what the actual thing was that was wrong, and there is already a censorship program on the boards. F&&+!!!.
It will probably also cause far too much work on the mods part, who already can't read each and every post, and that's just the ones that are "Flag Spammed". So it does help to show everyone that some individual did something bad, it doesn't tell anyone what exactly that was, and depending on just how much is removed, that might even include the poster.
The focus needs to be on the rules first and foremost, and after that, it has got to be the Mods enforcing all of the rules evenly and completely.
With current policy, the entire post gets removed. Somewhat frustrating if you made an off-hand remark to something that needed to be scrubbed in the same post you just finished writing your thesis on why Rogues are UP or whatever.
I accept your argument about subjectivisim and not initially understanding where the line is, however that's true in any subculture/social group - it takes time to learn what's socially acceptable.
Nonetheless, the frustration you mention here is entirely in the hands of the poster. Once you do learn where the line is, you can avoid this frustration by not making the off-hand remark that needs to be scrubbed.
I dont think this is a good argument against the current policy of deletion-over-editting, since it encourages laziness on the part of those who habitually break the rules - they can continue making off-hand, snide remarks and know that someone will go through sifting out whatever is objectionable, rather than taking the time to learn the (clearly subjective) rules themselves.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Presumably mods read posts before deleting them, so the effort needed to click Edit and then typing ctrl+a and ctrl+v shouldn't dramatically affect their work load. Conversely having highly visible notifications that people's posts are being redacted can have a sobering effect - both on people whose posts are being deleted and others who want to get stuck in with them.
An example of the scrubbing from the GitP forums can be found here. Note that both the original post as well as the next post (which quoted a post that was later scrubbed) are edited. I believe the quote scrub is not done manually but rather via a script or or possibly dark magic.
Another example is this this post, where the mod felt the need to scrub some sections of the post but left the parts he found inoffensive.
I'd just like to note that although I'm probably not showing the GitP forums in a very good light right now, in general I find them friendly and upbeat.
On a personal note - I've been a member of the GitP forums since September 2008, and read and post there regularly. In that time period I had one (1) post scrubbed on GitP (and was notified by private message from the moderator that I had been awarded a minor infraction for circumventing the board filters and explaining why my post had been scrubbed) shortly after I started posting, which made me reread the forum rules very closely. Since then I haven't had an infraction in six years.
Conversely I've been a member of the Paizo forums for about two years, and in that time I've probably had 10-20 posts deleted - most of them (I believe) because I quoted or referenced a different post that was deemed offensive. I can't say for certain that's why they were deleted, and I don't actually know how many of my posts have been deleted. Though I like to think I'm not a complete ass on the message boards, I could be just that and never even realize it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
we have no plans for an ignore feature.
The perfect opening for a shameless self-plug ... must ... resist...
So, there is this great plugin for Mozilla Firefox that adds a client-side Ignore feature for any users that are interested.