MODERATION RULES - Discussion thread

If selection of mods is part of rules, then my addition is I think it should be more or less be a sign up sheet and rotation. It should be encouraged as a duty and not a privilege or honor. Have enough mods and rotate frequently enough that it's not too much work. It's like a chore wheel and not an elected or appointed thing.

I can imagine an end result of four distinct groups...

1. Active Mod Group. Comprised of those who are currently doing the front-line modding.

2. Mod Improvement Group. This would be peeps who are interested in improving our modding practices. They would monitor how the current mod doctrine is working currently, discuss ways to improve that doctrine, and from time to time, make formal motions they feel would be in the community's best interests regarding mod doctrine.

3. Mod Training Group. I like the idea of all members being encouraged to take a mod training course... even those who have no intention of being an active mod. I think it's important to have an institutionalized mod doctrine (see above), and that this be actively transmitted to all incoming mods. I also think that peeps who have a better understanding of exactly what the active mods are trying to accomplish will tend to mindlessly whine less... even those who have no interest in actually modding themselves.

4. Mod Appeal Group. This would be a quasi-judicial group where end users could come to to appeal modding decisions.

Yeah, that is not what I am talking about. Either way, the goal needs to be defined. "Bad posts and bad posters" should not be the mods duty or responsibility to figure out. Everyone is super hot to define what bad posting is and we don't even have the basics of what we would want the discussion to be like. Is it a free and open exchange of ideas? Is it not being an asshole? Is it noise to signal ratio? Is it being eloquent? Dunking on mutual enemies? Does any of that really matter?

Some, like me, have a high tolerance for conflict. I understand others do not. Some people take their reputation here very seriously, and others do not. Some people have subjects that make them uncomfortable or sensitive, others do not. Some enjoy sarcasm and others don't get it. All this leads to a bunch of bullshit that could be cleared up somewhat by not putting the cart before the horse. Is this going to be like a family where there are people who get into their squabbles and some that flat out don't like or talk to each other, and that's okay, they can deal with it on their own, or is it going to be a debate club where rules for engagement are you must remain pleasant even when passions run high or gtfo?

And even that has to be decided AFTER we determine if we are trying to make this place "welcoming" to the broadest audience to increase membership and revenue whatever we suppose that looks like, and as if we know. Or is it fine to have it the way the folks already here like it and people can join or not based on what we already do?

At this point, there are a few rules that make sense are just obvious. Spamming, racist/sexist/etc, threats and discussions of other illegal activity. Anything else that people are trying to insert is based on a personal and not universally determined idea of what this forum is supposed to be. That includes personal attacks, family being off limits because "your momma" is fighting words, trolling, bad faith, low content, besmirching reputation, protecting the connection to the old site, not poking the bear on other old site, protecting future profits of a professional nature, imagined lawsuit avoidance, how a hypothetical woman might feel if she sees a racy avatar etc, etc. All of those things fall into place when we decide what the end goal of this place is. None of them can until we do.

FFS, why must you Rube Goldberg everything?  

Yeah, there aren't enough people for more than like 2 groups total. There's another thread asking people to say what they're willing to do, but we're probably going to have to accept that there are fewer than 20 people who will do anything other than post and donate money if needed. Maybe 40 or 50 people will vote on something once a month or so.

Yeah, that is a perfect example of what i am talking about though. There was a fundamental misunderstanding of what we were trying to achieve with our relationship to 22. What Kerwo did makes sense in the context of trying to protect that link, and trying to protect the site owners, whoever those are or will be, from vindictive action. There was no consensus on if we gave a shit about that link or not. If we did, then we could say we will not talk about any of those cats in any way that could piss them off. That is loaded and emotional because a lot of the pain we just escaped was tip-toeing around those same motherfuckers, plus kinda inflated because we see the same mods here as there who obviously have learned to mod in that environment.

For people who were not as mad at 22 for how they acted, it seemed silly--just shut up for a while--for those that were very offended by it it was different, fuck those guys why the hell am I going to get out of that frying pan and then STILL worry about what Mason thinks about any fucking thing? Not interested in that. 

That was a question that needed to be answered before we could possibly get to how to deal with the posts and threads that broached the subjects. Kerwo was set up to fail. The same thing here, if we are going to start creating rules to enforce on a society that has yet to be defined we are fucked. No fucking chance. We have to know what we want it to look like before we can make it happen. People are calling for bannings already here and we don;t even have an idea of what we are trying to achieve. 

I don't think who we are or what our thoughts on 2p2 had anything to do with it. Imo, gregorio felt that kerowo should not be deleting any of his posts for any reasons. I think that was largely because greg is a regular who has no history of causing problems, but partly because no one should have had that authority simply because they were appointed and simply because they were mods on 2p2. I think if gregorio had had some input on who the mods were here or how people became mods he wouldn't have felt so tred upon.

We're never going to have it exactly right as far as what things will be moderated and that will always be subject to change.

I prefer somewhere in-between, with a rule like "don't be a dick" being accompanied by a non-exhaustive list of examples.  For example, if you make a rule against baseless conspiracy theories, you might need to include examples of conspiracy theories that keep popping up because people who believe them don't think they are conspiracy theories.  Does "don't be a dick" mean "don't be a dick, even to bad posters" or does it mean "don't be a dick, unless it's a racist or someone else who deserves it (and you don't go too far overboard)"?

I would prefer to start out with a thin rulebook and add some sort of commentary or clarification every time there is a significant dispute.  I've used the idea of common law in the past as a model for moderation, relying on an initial base of custom and precedent, but being allowed to evolve based on the needs and a better understanding of justice.

Any review of mod decisions needs to include the ability to examine actions not taken in addition to actions taken.

Still doesn't change the fact that greg, and other people like me for example, prefer that the people who have mod powers are not just appointed.  For me it's more than that though, I think the distinction between mod and member should be as small as possible.

I don't really care that much about what the moderation standards are.  I could go either way on swears or not, talk shit about 2p2 or not, always be nice or have semi-entertaining fights.  

I do like the idea of less moderation, not because I want people to be more rude, but I want everyone to feel responsible for telling someone when they've gone too far.

I am, as is often the case, in agreement with you. My point is adjacent to this tho. The moderators, regardless of how they are selected or who they are will either need guidelines to go by or there will always be situations like above. There is no right or wrong answer to moderating until the desired output of the community is determined. You can’t have what you are asking for if the main goal of the site is capitalistic. It is counter to that.

My complaint about people being made mods here as a result of having been mods on 22 was a separate issue (people should not be given unearned power based on their privilege, i.e. having been appointed as a mod on a separate forum by Mat should not entitle anyone to a position of power over here) that is easily addressed by any sort of rotating mod proposals. But just because someone is on rotating mod duty and not a 22 legacy mod does not mean they should have reason to unilaterally moderate another member’s posting. I don’t want a hierarchical structure here even if the hierarchy is continually changing.

Other than things like deleting spam or moving a thread about football out of ATF and into Other Topics, or acting against very specific severe and easy-to-clearly-define offences, I don’t think mods should take any action against another member without the community’s endorsement. I understand there are some people here who want to post on a forum that is actively modded, but I do not understand why anyone would want to interact with their online friends and acquaintances in this way.

So what does it mean to be a “member?” How do we define membership? How is it attained? Well, the only thing we’ve seemed to be able to do rather expeditiously is to decide on whom we consider to be “members,” until it was determined we weren’t doing it properly and it was nullified because the process wasn’t convoluted enough. But everyone knows who the members in good standing in this community are, and from this base (i.e. almost everyone here except a couple of idiots posting in the politics threads) these members can invite new memebers, or people can self-nominate for membership, and we can use a 66% or 70% majority with no more than one block or whatever to add new members. It’s not like we’re nominating Supreme Court justices. We can have a similar process to dis-member any member who turns out to be a problem.

Right now this site is a community of relatively like-minded people with a common connection to 22 and history of posting together and getting along more or less and it should be moderated as such. If this changes and suddenly Exiled Politics becomes the next Reddit, then this may have to change, but I don’t foresee that becoming an issue any time soon.

gregorio,

That's fair. But it's always a little fuzzy. Maybe kerowo went too far, but he is fine with undoing actions when there's a complaint. Like I said, I'm pretty cool with a wide range of what constitutes posting that should be moderated. As long as we have a quick way of resolving these things and we feel that the mods have legitimately come by their powers, it usually should just be considered a difference of opinions and not big problem. We have to allow that there is some range in what people think is ok to post.

As for the point about moderation being done in the open, I second that 100%. The mod forum thing was one of the biggest things that set mods and users apart on 2p2. There's no reason for any of the site administration to be done in secret. Even if it is autocratic, the autocrats ought to be saying "this is the way it is, take it or leave it."

That's why in my earlier post I distinguish between how people we consider friends (i.e. members) are moderated, and how we moderate people who are not yet members

I'm more comfortable with a scenario where the rules apply to everyone equally.  Grandfather everyone in who has been able to post here without getting banned, then let people be considered members if they can make x posts without losing their good standing in the community.