Possible changes to the warning/ban system

[James R]

I invite members to participate in a potential re-write of how official Warnings and Bans are handled on sciforums.

Here is the policy that is currently in place:

[thread=107046]How they work: Warnings, Infraction points and Bans[/thread]

I perceive some problems with how this system works in practice. So as not to prejudice your feedback, I won't give my thoughts on this until later.

A couple of questions I'd like you to consider:

• Is the system of variable-length bans according to infraction points a good one, or would a system in which ban lengths were more standardised (say 2 weeks for any ban) be preferable?
• Currently, infraction points are handed out ONLY for temporary bans. No points are allocated for official warnings. Is this a good system? Or, would it be preferable to hand out points for both warnings and temporary bans, and to adjust the threshold of points at which somebody is eligible for a temporary ban?
• Do short (say 1 week or less) temporary bans produce a change in poster behaviour? Do they achieve anything useful?
• If we were to abolish short bans and make the minimum ban 2 weeks, would that be a good or bad thing?

----

Here are 3 possibilities for the system:

Proposal 1

1. Warnings are issued with yellow-cards, as in the current system. Every warning gets 1 infraction point.
2. Temporary bans get, say, 5 infraction points.
3. Warning points expire, say, 3 or 4 months after they are issued.
4. Temporary ban points never expire - or maybe we expire them 1 year after issue.
5. The length of any temporary ban issued depends on the currently-active infraction point total of the member, as in the current system. It might work like this, for example:

• Poster has 10 or fewer active infraction points: ban for anything up to 7 days at moderator discretion.
• Poster has 10-20 infraction points: standard-length ban for 2 weeks.
• Poster has more than 20 infraction points: ban for 2 weeks and the moderators will convene a group discussion concerning the poster's future on sciforums (i.e. whether to permanently ban the poster).

The numbers of infraction points issued are not set in stone - nor are the expiry rates - and I'd appreciate any suggestions about these. The same goes for point thresholds.

Proposal 2

An alternative system, and a conceptually simpler one, would be to hand out variable amounts of infraction points with every warning, and to impose a set-time ban (perhaps automatic) on anybody exceeding a certain limit of active infraction points. This would be similar to the system that we had before the one that is currently in place.

This would mean that we'd need to rank the severity of infraction categories, assigning more points to behaviours that we consider to be more serious. Note that changing the current categories, or splitting them into sub-categories, is an option we could explore.

The other issue is whether automatic bans are desirable. We wouldn't have to have them, but if bans are to be based purely on an overall point count it doesn't seem to make a lot of sense not to automate the system.

The issue of expiry times for infraction points becomes important if we introduce a ban system based on overall point count. It would be possible to make categories of infraction points expire at different rates, too. For example, an infraction for "inappropriate language" might expire after a week, while an infraction for "insulting another member" might expire after a month.

Proposal 3

Keep the current system as it is. It works just fine.

----

I also welcome all suggestions for alternative systems, because maybe you have better ideas about this than I do.

I look forward to your replies.

 

[Randwolf]

How about incorporating the right to face your accuser, somehow?

Especially when it comes to banishment, as opposed to "tickets for speeding".

I'm sorry, it's very late where I am, but I have several thoughts on this matter, now that it has been opened for general discussion. I will attempt to gather them and give a more thoughtful, in-depth response tomorrow.

 

[James R]

How about incorporating the right to face your accuser, somehow?

By "accuser", do you mean an ordinary member who hits the "report" button on one of your posts, or the moderator who makes the decision to warn or ban you as a result?

Obviously we don't want to get in a position where every warning or ban given is opened up for general debate among the membership. Assuming we have competent moderators, they ought to be able to apply the rules fairly.

On the other hand, maybe we could introduce some kind of "independent" review process in which the moderator handing out a ban would not be involved. That would have to cut both ways though. If it turned out that the moderator was right the first time, then the member complaining should probably justifiably pay some additional penalty for wasting everybody's time.

System currently in place does allow for PM to an admin to review a moderator's actions, but maybe some people would like something different.

I'm sorry, it's very late where I am, but I have several thoughts on this matter, now that it has been opened for general discussion. I will attempt to gather them and give a more thoughtful, in-depth response tomorrow.

No worries.

 

[Randwolf]

By "accuser", do you mean an ordinary member who hits the "report" button on one of your posts, or the moderator who makes the decision to warn or ban you as a result?

Both. The member being the aggrieved party and the mods being officers of the court.

Obviously we don't want to get in a position where every warning or ban given is opened up for general debate among the membership. Assuming we have competent moderators, they ought to be able to apply the rules fairly.

Yes, that would be nice.

On the other hand, maybe we could introduce some kind of "independent" review process in which the moderator handing out a ban would not be involved. That would have to cut both ways though. If it turned out that the moderator was right the first time, then the member complaining should probably justifiably pay some additional penalty for wasting everybody's time.

This is more like what what I had in mind. If I understand the existing situation correctly, little change would be required - simply some transparency of back room activity. Plus the right for the defendant to plead his / her case...

As to "additional penalty", are you likening that to "court costs", or something equally trivial? Like maybe an extra day on a two week ban?

System currently in place does allow for PM to an admin to review a moderator's actions, but maybe some people would like something different.

System in place requires revision, at least in some members' eyes.

Personally, I think a simple "sunshine" (transparency) policy would go a long way towards calming the unrest that currently exists. Right now, it's like being "disappeared" to the gulag.
:fright:

 

[Captain Kremmen]

Leave the system much as it is.
It is simple and works fine.
I doubt that many people have a problem with the system.
Perhaps a system for appeal could come into play.
We could vote in a jury. That would be fun.

Most people adjust their post content to fit in with the way subforums are run by their moderators. The moderators work for nothing, and if their payment is to have their patch as they like it, I'm fine with that.
Some people don't seem to know when to back off, and they get bans.
I suspect that an unusual proportion of members have varying degrees of Aspergers Syndrome, which doesn't help.

We had a complex system before, and it got to the point where half the posts were people bitching. I exaggerate, but sometimes that's how it seemed.
Certainly, many posts were full of red warnings etc., which spoiled the reading of them. It made the site look overcontrolled, authoritarian even.

 

[Gustav]

This is more like what what I had in mind. If I understand the existing situation correctly, little change would be required - simply some transparency of back room activity. Plus the right for the defendant to plead his / her case...

Personally, I think a simple "sunshine" (transparency) policy would go a long way towards calming the unrest that currently exists. Right now, it's like being "disappeared" to the gulag.
:fright:

good job
keep at it

 

[chimpkin]

A two-week standard ban seems kind of draconian for a first infraction...

Another website I go to has a much more relaxed posting rule: "Don't be a bigger dick than the moderators." It works for that site.

When someone is breaking that rule... the mods will tell them to can it. If they don't, the thread may get locked and/or the member gets a time-out.

 

[Cifo]

A point deduction system. I think that, psychologically, a point system might work better in reverse: New members are assumed to be "good" and are given a standard number of "grace points" upon joining (let's say 10). Good behavior results in the addition of points at a certain rate up to a maximum (let's say 20, but it could also be the original number of grace points). But infractions whittle away at those points, and when the points drop below certain thresholds, punishments/bans are applied. A rating of zero or less might result in a permanent ban. Some countries (eg, Denmark, Germany, Italy) use such a system for their driving point system. It has a greater psychological effect to see one's points taken away (approach zero ).

Point scores publicly displayed. À la The Scarlet Letter. Instead of being invisible in the software, perhaps members' point scores could be shown on each of their posts, not so much for the benefit of others, but for themselves.

Restoring points. Points can be restored up to the maximum at some predetermined rate, perhaps at one point per month, or x points after x months. The latter method means that the full deduction continues to be applied for the full period of time. For example, a poster gets hit for 5 points and receives a month-long ban. After returning, the poster experiences, say, a 5-month probationary period after which the 5 points are restored en masse.

Permanent bans. I have always considered permanent bans as too drastic. What's the harm of putting up with someone's stupidity/crassness on a yearly basis? Aren't forums for discussing and learning and changing? How can one change/apologize when permanently banned. Some members are adolescents; should we expect maturity from them? Instead, let's say the first "permanent" ban is for a year, the next one for two years, etc. Make it graduated. However, yes, definitely allow real permanent bans for intolerable "real world" infractions -- threats/crimes committed through the forum. Such things must not be tolerated.

 

[Anti-Flag]

I think which actual system you pick is fairly arbitrary.
What is likely to see an improvement in behaviour is more transparency with regards to actions taken and applying these things equally across the board, regardless of status. "Moderators discretion" often leaves things far too open to cries of injustice, as do variable punishments for the same offence.
There should also be a place for common sense, if the rules are too strict then nobody will be left to post. Too lax and the quality of content decreases. Either way, there should be some system of recourse when it comes to bans as moderators are not infallible, and they should also not be above punishment.

 

[S.A.M.]

I don't think it matters what the system is, the problem is not the infraction system or point system or the ban system. The problem is moderator integrity and transparency

 

[WillNever]

I'm forced to agree with the above.

The system isn't at fault. The flaw right now is that the site's current moderators are abusing the system and not following its rules. So changing the system won't matter, if moderators like BentheMan and Hercules Rockefeller twist the methods of the system already in place.


Check this out to see what I am talking about.

If JamesR and others are concerned that moderation currently if flawed, then why hasn't the above incident been addressed? Has Bentheman been talked to?

 

[Cifo]

The problem is moderator integrity and transparency

The flaw right now is that the site's current moderators are abusing the system and not following its rules.

Just to give these things names —

Procedural justice is the element of justice concerned with the application of laws, rather than with the content of the laws themselves.

Interactional Justice is the degree to which the people affected by decisions are treated with dignity and respect when procedures are implemented, and it consists of two specific types of interactional justice:

#1 – interpersonal justice, which reflects the degree to which people are treated with politeness, dignity, and respect by authorities or third parties involved in executing procedures or determining outcomes.

#2 – informational justice, focuses on the explanations provided to people that convey information about why procedures were used in a certain way, where more adequacy of explanation is prevalent, the perceived level of informational justice is higher.

 

[skaught]

One of the things I would like to see would be accessible documentation. Perhaps a thread like tiassas action notes, where all offending posts are available. It gives people an idea of what is acceptable and unacceptable. Plus, I think it would cut down on the "Why was so-and-so banned" threads. Everything should be there from the smallest warnings, to perma ban offending posts.
I've also toyed with the idea that anytime someone is banned, before they are allowed to come back, they have to address the issue with a mod (through PM of course) and if they don't seem to feel remorseful, their ban will continue until they can make some sort of promise that their behavior will change.
You could also institute a probationary period of sorts after a return from a ban where certain restrictions are placed on the member. Maye something like they are only allowed so many posts per day for a certain amount of days, or maybe the inability to start new threads. During this probationary period, they would also be under heavy scrutiny.
Basically, they will have to prove their worth by appealing to a mod by showing that they acknowledge the wrongness of their ways, and say what they will do differently in the future, and then prove it by behaving and following through with what they said they will do for the probationary period.
This may be more work than its worth for the mods, but perhaps you could appoint one or two people as mods whose sole purpose is to handle this situation rather than being mods of certain sub forums. Any mod could hand out warnings, infractions or bans, but only these one or two people would handle the corrective action.
I think that this would cut down on perma bans, because when people are held accountable for their actions, they are more likely to change their behavior. Right now, current bans seem to be purely punishment. And often result in the returning member coming back and starting a thread that attacks the mod, creates drama, and overall, decreases morale.

These are just my ideas. I appreciate the opportunity to contribute in this way James. Thanks!

 

[Mr MacGillivray]

abolish all moderation except the removal of commercial spam.

 

[Stryder]

abolish all moderation except the removal of commercial spam.

Amusingly that could be altered to replace "Moderation" with "Members" as both statements would achieve similar outcomes.

Moderation is just not termed properly here. If people want to say "this is wrong" or "that moderator is biased" then why not ask a simple question.

What is a Moderator?

from the wikipedia

The moderators (short singular form: "mod") are users (or employees) of the forum who are granted access to the posts and threads of all members for the purpose of moderating discussion (similar to arbitration) and also keeping the forum clean (neutralizing spam and spambots etc.).
....
Common privileges of moderators include: deleting, merging, moving, and splitting of posts and threads, locking, renaming, stickying of threads, banning, suspending, unsuspending, unbanning, warning the members, or adding, editing, removing the polls of threads.
....
Essentially, it is the duty of the moderator to manage the day-to-day affairs of a forum or board as it applies to the stream of user contributions and interactions. The relative effectiveness of this user management directly impacts the quality of a forum in general, its appeal, and its usefulness as a community of interrelated users.

The wiki description doesn't of course do it justice, as there is a lot more to the tasks that are actually performed. For the most part the moderation team attempts to be Empathetic to peoples blights, so sometimes we act like a negotiator attempting to talk someone down from jumping.

If we have reason to believe that someone on the forum has committed a major crime then we will likely attempt to act upon it to the best of our abilities, sometimes it's just the concern certain members would eventually escalate to a major crime again we try to deal with the situation even though technically it's not really our problem.

In some respects it's almost like working for one of those charities that runs helplines to listen to peoples problems.

This is especially proven by the rhetorical abuse that moderators sometimes have to put up with. Sometimes this abuse is absolutely soul destroying (that's metaphorical for Scientists amongst you) and in essence it can actually effect Moderators own psychology. (Albeit I doubt any will admit it) The rhetoric itself can be seen as Malice, so if some members are dealt with because of their constant slurs at a Moderator it's not always to do with backlash, it's because they've stepped over that line and it's effecting someone that deeply which in turn effects the forum as a whole.

Of course some moderators might rebound from abuse with abuse of their own which is where we get all these complaints of moderators being unfair, but only usually with certain people that have manage to spite them.

Arbitration is touched on, but on an international forum such as this it's actually very difficult, especially with some troublesome people online that seem to have nothing better to do all day than just piss people off by pretending to be victims or just being outright rude and disruptive.

If we removed moderation we'd see the forums slowly decay a slow agonising death, we'd see bullies and abusers first push out any discussion with people that couldn't stomach them, there'd be instances of retaliation, then a decline in member discussion (as what's the point of discussing something somewhere where nobody actually cares about discussion)
I've seen it happen on other forums.

So the next question to ask is:

What tasks should a Moderator be tasked with?

If you don't think they should ban people then remove that as a task and leave that to Administration.

(Once it's defined "what a Moderator is" and "what it is they should be tasked with", it's easier to then work out what rules to apply since you will then know how moderators fit into the application of such rules.)

 

[S.A.M.]

The moderators in this board are aligned to the topics for which they have their own decided opinion about.

Being impartial in those circumstances is almost impossible for anyone to do.

Moderators should do the moderation within a specific sub-forum as far as routine issues goes, but if they see a post (besides obvious commercial spam) they have a problem with, they should report it to an impartial moderator, that being one who agrees to NOT post in that sub-forum, for resolution.

For instance, if I was a moderator I could be called upon to resolve a reported complaint in the Comparative Religion threads because I never post in that topic, but I wouldn't be the one to call about complaints in Politics because I'm an active poster there and it would be impossible to avoid taking sides.

Your post reminded me of a poem:

The common problem, yours, mine, everyone’s
Is---not to fancy what were fair in lilfe
Provided it could be, --but, finding first
What may be, then find how to make it fair
Up to our means


~Robert Browning, Bishop Blougram’s Apology

IOW, do you really want a non-Biology moderator moderating on a topic in the Biology forums?

We've had this argument off and on for years about maintaining the distance between poster and moderator - I was kicked out for example as a moderator of Biology and Genetics and Science and Society, for my views in the Politics subforum. I've always maintained that doing the job of a moderator should be separate from expressing an opinion as a poster. IOW, regardless of my opinions, I should be able to step back and moderate the forum objectively - if however, the moderator is unable to separate his bias from his moderation, then that moderator or administrator should step down, because it is conflict of interest. If you cannot moderate without conflict of interest, its no use claiming that you are psychologically unbalanced or upset. What you are is unable to do your job correctly and effectively

 

[adoucette]

IOW, do you really want a non-Biology moderator moderating on a topic in the Biology forums?

No.
What I said was the Biology Moderator should handle all the routine day to day duties in the Biology topic, but if they have a post which they think deserves an infraction they should ask a moderator who doesn't post in that forum to determine if it warrants one and also issue it.

It doesn't take someone with Biology experience to determine those type of issues.

For instance Trippy and Ice have been going at it for pages now in the Earth Sciences sub-forum, but Trippy is also the Moderator of that area, but he has not played the Moderator card even though I think Ice clearly deserves it.

But would that be fair?

For Trippy to be debating him and then turn around and penalize him?

Of course not.

Which is why this is a more reasonable way to deal with it:

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2754699&postcount=103


Arthur

 

[adoucette]

I was kicked out for example as a moderator of Biology and Genetics and Science and Society, for my views in the Politics subforum.

Were you letting your political views affect the way you moderated those topics?

 

[KilljoyKlown]

No.
What I said was the Biology Moderator should handle all the routine day to day duties in the Biology topic, but if they have a post which they think deserves an infraction they should ask a moderator who doesn't post in that forum to determine if it warrants one and also issue it.

It doesn't take someone with Biology experience to determine those type of issues.

For instance Trippy and Ice have been going at it for pages now in the Earth Sciences sub-forum, but Trippy is also the Moderator of that area, but he has not played the Moderator card even though I think Ice clearly deserves it.

But would that be fair?

For Trippy to be debating him and then turn around and penalize him?

Of course not.

Which is why this is a more reasonable way to deal with it:

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2754699&postcount=103


Arthur

I've been following your thinking on this subject and you make a very strong case for your position. I will support your idea.

I would also like to know how they go about selecting new moderators on this forum? Just curious, on another forum when they needed a new moderator they would ask for nominations and then consider anyone that accumulated at least a minimum of 5 nominations.

 

[S.A.M.]

No.
What I said was the Biology Moderator should handle all the routine day to day duties in the Biology topic, but if they have a post which they think deserves an infraction they should ask a moderator who doesn't post in that forum to determine if it warrants one and also issue it.

It doesn't take someone with Biology experience to determine those type of issues.

For instance Trippy and Ice have been going at it for pages now in the Earth Sciences sub-forum, but Trippy is also the Moderator of that area, but he has not played the Moderator card even though I think Ice clearly deserves it.

But would that be fair?

For Trippy to be debating him and then turn around and penalize him?

Of course not.

Which is why this is a more reasonable way to deal with it:

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2754699&postcount=103


Arthur

I've gone head to head with ice several times and Trippy only once - but it was a memorable one time - and just looking cursorily at that thread, I would say that I prefer Trippy's approach of debating the methods and statistics to Fraggle's jumping in over Trippy's head - you learn much from one and nothing from the other.

My own debate with Trippy was much more heated - I'm pretty sure he thought some downright nasty things about me - but I learned in the course of that debate that Trippy is inordinately objective and fair - both as a poster and as a moderator - and if he felt that ice should get a warning, he would step back and do it or PM him - the second being more likely than the first.

I have a lot of respect for both ice and Trippy and the methods and reasoning they bring to a debate, so I would not be surprised if, at the end of it, they shook hands and walked away without any rancor towards each other.