Possible changes to the warning/ban system

[phlogistician]

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

As you quoted SAM I'll let you in on some stuff she hasn't been honest about. When SAM moderated the Biology forum, it was DEAD. It was a a handful of stickies created by SAM, a few more topics by SAM, and scant all else.

On other sub-forums, she displayed characteristics not befitting a moderator (like telling lies and generally being unpleasant). We don't ban members from individual forums if they misbehave in a single forum, so behaviour not befitting a mod in politics, of course has ramifications in her own forum.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

Sorry, no time to read all the replies now, but I will quickly reply to two examples raised of my poor moderation, while I think of it.

I don't know if time has dimmed your memory of the nightmare which posed as a warning system before the present system, but it was a ferkin dark bad dream, an Edgar Alan Poe creation to which no-one would willingly return.

By Ferkin dark bad dream, I mean a Fricking dark bad dream, and possibly even (cover your ears children), a Goddamn dark bad dream.
Don't do it!

 

[Cifo]

The second thing to say is that in both cases the relevant posts were reported by a member

This has prompted me to think about the overall nature of moderation. Again some labels to consider.

Reactive vs proactive. In the American governmental system, the executive and legislative branches are proactive, where they're constantly doing their own thing without prompting. The judicial branch is reactive, where it must not adjudicate on an issue unless someone else brings a grievance (otherwise you'd have the courts poking their noses into everything).

IMO, all moderation should not be totally reactive because, for example, the Cesspool might become a crude slugfest where no one complains how dirty things get. Also, I think bans should require some sort of peer review before being implemented.

 

[Stryder]

We do need a simple system that both moderators and members can handle. (Obviously it's just coming up with an acceptable one)

The standard forum software would operate on points being given on negative actions which decay over time and when a person reaches a set number they are automatically banned until the points decay back to bringing them under a ban. The "tempban" period on such points is the length of the "decay" period on points.

Permanent bans could be rigged to how many times the user hit's the "tempban" limit. So it's up to the member to keep their nose clean. Obviously anybody reaching this tempban point would have to be looked at by an Administrator to make sure the points were fairly given to the member by the moderators to ensure fairness, otherwise they could be overturned.

It could be possible to allow tempbanned members to enter a "Limbo" usergroup that has access to a subforum where they can still post. This subforum would not be publicly available, it would only be viewable by Moderators, Administrators and the members currently tempbanned. This would allow the member to discuss what they did wrong and potentially ask for either forgiveness or a rethink on the points tally that all moderators and Administrators can access.

Such threads in a limbo subforum can then be used to express what it is they did wrong, come to an arrangement about any changes in action or state any escalation in action to permanent ban. At the conclusion of the thread and action, the thread is locked to allow an archive of what is and isn't tolerable to other tempbanned members that grace the "Limbo" subforum.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

Cifo, I always respect your opinion, but I think your comparison is a bit OTT.

You are comparing this site to the US legislature.

This site only has a small number of people who regularly contribute. A hundred?
I think a better comparison would be to a village school.

For people who have not been on here long.

In the past, we went from an over-complex system which caused huge problems, to the present very simple system, which is occasionally unjust, but causes few problems.
Whole threads were once engaged with discussions of whether individual infractions were justified.
Threads were full of red writing and infraction stamps.
You can't conceive of how tedious it was.
In the present system, subforum mods have a large control of what is acceptable on their subforums, and they differ in their views.
I think that that is a good thing, and that it adds to the forum.
Some people may disagree.

If people think that there is too little representation for people who feel that they have been hard done by, then that aspect could be tweaked.
But please let us have no return to the recriminations and navel gazing that went before.
Just look at this thread to see the possibilities.

For any other forum, which is having difficulties with moderation, I would recommend them to look at the policies as implemented on this forum at present.

 

[adoucette]

There should probably be some explicit expectation that moderators do not directly participate in the fora they are charged with moderating, exactly to maintain their credibility. Which is probably to say that moderators should not be assigned to fora which they have much interest in. In addition to issues of credible impartiality, this would also address certain fora that have become little more than blogs for their moderators.

I generally agree with most of your comments on this topic, but to this I'd simply add a practical issue.

Moderators need to be assigned to topics they have an interest in, else they won't have any incentive to read them on a timely basis. And I think a lot of what they do in a sub-forum doesn't require impariality. Keeping things on topic. Locking threads etc.

My suggestion is to let the moderators do everything they do in their topic forum EXCEPT issue Bans.

For that they have to bring in an independent moderator.

Consider the Trippy/Ice issue.

While Trippy didn't take moderator action against Ice even as angry as he got with him, Ice also had little recourse; a "Report this Post" would have gone to Trippy.

That thread might have been quite a bit different if James R was the impartial moderator that was called on when things got out of hand.

Arthur

 

[Captain Kremmen]

My suggestion is to let the moderators do everything they do in their topic forum EXCEPT issue Bans.

Very Good idea.
Possible variation on your theme:
The moderators could still give warnings, get rid of spammers, and give bans up to 3 days.
Perhaps three other moderators, or a user voted jury, could decide on longer bans.

 

[S.A.M.]

While Trippy didn't take moderator action against Ice even as angry as he got with him, Ice also had little recourse; a "Report this Post" would have gone to Trippy.

That thread might have been quite a bit different if James R was the impartial moderator that was called on when things got out of hand.

Arthur

I could be wrong but I am pretty sure that reports go to the moderator of the sub-forum as well as the admin [and maybe supermods?].

 

[Tiassa]

Streetwise

A Brief Note on Post Reports

It is correct that a post complaint filed with the

button is received by the—

• subforum moderator.
• supermoderators.
• administrators.​

One thing I would note, having viewed so many post reports, is that members need to remember that rarely do offenses occur in any respectable assertion of a vacuum.

More often than not, if something seems a clear offense, yet we don't seem to be doing anything about it, before one jumps to a conclusion that we are being specifically biased, one might also wonder how we expect something to end if this is what moves us to get involved. That is, part of our discretion involves the prefix phrase, "All things considered ...."

That is, what should we do if someone who calls another a dick is upset because the other called him an asshole? Appropriately, warn the dick for calling the asshole and asshole, and warn the asshole for calling the dick a dick. And then suspend the asshole for daring to complain because he got his own violation in equal measure.

Or we just mutter, "Kids will be kids. Let 'em play."

I mean, I really don't think I'm describing anything especially complicated. It's the sort of thing you can figure out by age ten.

It's all fun and games until someone loses a proverbial eye. At what point, then, do we actually punish the blind mice for running with scissors while wearing socks on the wood floor?

So, no, it's not necessarily that we hate you, or anything like that. And even if we do, we ought to be able to do our jobs properly, anyway. That's the challenge. But, in truth, people don't make it easy.

Everybody wants to be a hero. Except they always forget that it hurts to get crucified. Martyrdom sucks. I mean, you're dead, so you don't get to enjoy winning, right?

And we all streetwise, right? Ain't no prudish virgins here, 'yotch!

 

[Trippy]

I generally agree with most of your comments on this topic, but to this I'd simply add a practical issue.

Moderators need to be assigned to topics they have an interest in, else they won't have any incentive to read them on a timely basis. And I think a lot of what they do in a sub-forum doesn't require impariality. Keeping things on topic. Locking threads etc.

My suggestion is to let the moderators do everything they do in their topic forum EXCEPT issue Bans.

For that they have to bring in an independent moderator.

Consider the Trippy/Ice issue.

While Trippy didn't take moderator action against Ice even as angry as he got with him, Ice also had little recourse; a "Report this Post" would have gone to Trippy.

That thread might have been quite a bit different if James R was the impartial moderator that was called on when things got out of hand.

Arthur

If you're talking about the Fukushima thread then no.
As I am not one of the designated 'forum leaders', I get no correspondence regarding reported posts in that thread.

Additionally, post reports are also sent to the various levels of admin - for example if you were to report a post of mine, a report, as well as being sent to me, would be sent to James R, Tiassa, Plazma Inferno, and I think Stryder as well.

 

[Randwolf]

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

This is a great idea, IMHO. However, the proposals made to date seem to jump straight to tactical issues while potentially bypassing the underlying premise. In other words, what are we trying to accomplish in the first place? What are the goals? While these may seem to be self-evident, a review might be in order.

A solid strategy can be critical in evaluating any proposed tactics which may in turn be limited by logistics (i.e. cost-benefit analysis).

What is your strategy?
If you want to set up a productivity system, invest the time in not only learning it but making it a habit, and be able to use it for many years to come, it’s very important to consider well your strategy—the foundations of the system.

If you do a knock-up job here, you’ll pay for it when you find you need to start from scratch. A builder once told me that when you buy a house, it’s important to check the foundations: you can fix most problems, but if the foundation is unstable, you may end up having to start from scratch.

Tactics
Every tactic must suit the strategy. If you can’t explain how a tactic helps you achieve the strategic outcome, then it’s probably not the best choice and needs to be rethought.

Tactics are the actions that lead to execution of the strategy. The keyword is action, but tactics are made up of a few elements…

Logistics
…
• Acquisition or construction, maintenance, operation, and disposition of facilities.
• Acquisition or furnishing of services.
…

As to strategy, I presume that the following represents at least a subset of what we are trying to achieve. This focuses mostly on the site level, as opposed to the subforum level.

• To provide an environment that is conducive to the exchange of ideas, opinions and knowledge.
• To allow for the formation of a “community” that inspires a sense of “belonging” amongst the members.
• To formulate a fair and consistent doctrine that fosters a sense of justice in the community.
• To design policies regulating behavior that may inhibit productive discourse.
• To establish a set of “rules” designed to enforce policy whilst not unduly stifling free speech.

Is this interpretation of the desired “Strategy” correct?
Please edit, correct, extend or comment on as you see fit.



Once there is consensus on strategy, we can move on to tactics.

If one reviews the distinct suggestions put forth to date (as of when I started composing this frikkin’ post, anyway – through post #59), it seems possible to categorize the majority of them into eight general sections.

Summarized version:

1. Judicial discretion - mandatory minimums and maximums, as well as sentence departure guidelines.
2. Separation of powers.
3. Site-wide consistency / standardization.
4. Transparency or “sunshine” laws.
5. Rehabilitation.
6. Sunset provision for current system.
7. Trial by tribunal / jury of your peers.
8. General procedure / miscellaneous.

This summary may allow us to ask a few questions in order to gain perspective on which direction the majority would like to go in. I realize that many have commented on specifics which would imply a desire to move one way or the other on a given issue, but let’s try thinking in the abstract for a moment. (Individual citations below)


Would you, as a “regular member” or part of the staff:

• Prefer more or less judicial discretion on the part of the mods? Agree with the institution of “Mandatory minimums and maximums” for various offenses? If so, would you like to see “Sentence departure guidelines” for said “Mandatory minimums and maximums”?
  
  
• Believe that Moderation powers be separated? Should Mods be able to post in the forums that they moderate?
  
  
• Think that the same set of rules be enacted and attempted to be enforced site-wide, as opposed to different rules for different sub-fora?
  
  
• Want to know what goes on with other posters during and after disciplinary hearings? Remember, that would mean that your record was open to viewing by others as well…
  
  
• Have faith in the concept of Rehabilitation? If so, does there come a time when it’s just too late? (Perma-Ban / Death penalty) How would we best go about rehabilitation?
  
  
• Should there be a "sunset" provision for any given set of rules / procedures? In other words, should a new "version release" be debated every x period of time? How long? Should the Members have the chance to debate and vote on said "release", causing the site to be more "democratic"? (i.e. Transparency on the legislative side as well as the Judicial.) Also, I don't believe this should preclude minor tweaks or "builds" by the Mod / Admin team in the interim.
  
  
• Do you want the right to trial? By jury of your peers or by tribunal of the Mods / Admin personnel? How about an "Appeal" process? How would that work, procedurally?
  
  
• Any other comments on "General procedure"? Any more egregious examples of past injustices for review? Although I'm not really sure this is the place for that. Personally, I don't mind the examples / links, but I would like to see a limit on the amount of debate as to whether a particular case was handled correctly. Let's get the rules fixed, then we can talk about old cases and their outcomes, preferably in a different thread. Just my opinion...

Does this approach even begin to make sense to anyone?
:shrug:

Note: Once we have achieved consensus on the direction(s) we want to head, and ruled out any operational / logistical constraints, we can easily flesh out the details. Many are already present in this thread.


Sorry for the delay in posting, I was quite busy in "real life" today. I will review posts following number 59 and revise this as needed.

After I have a chance to give my own answers to my own questions...


=========================================================


Expanded version of suggestions to date, by category:

• 1. Judicial discretion - mandatory minimums and maximums, as well as sentence departure guidelines
• a. Standardized vs Variable length bans.​
• b. Potential minimum ban length of two weeks.​
• c. Establishment of a schedule of number of infraction points necessary to invoke a ban.​
• d. Tying of permanent bans to the number of times one has been temp-banned.​
• e. Retention of moderator’s discretion for short temporary bans.​
• f. Automatic bans based on amount of accumulated infraction points.​
• g. Replacement of permanent bans with bans lasting a year or multiples thereof.​
• h. Specific number of infraction points varying automatically with category / type / severity of infraction.​
• i. Infraction points to be earned for “temp-bans” as well as “warnings”.​
• i. Analogous to monetary fines or jail time or both.​
• 2. Separation of powers.
• a. Establishment of a panel of Mods whose sole duty would be handling banishment / reinstatement issues.​
• b. Prohibiting the moderator of a given subforum to post in that particular forum, i.e. separation of power.​
• c. Suggestion to let the moderators do everything they currently do in their own forum except issue Bans.​
• 3. Site-wide consistency / standardization.
• a. Application of rules and associated points across all fora, i.e. “consistency” in the rules.​
• b. Establishment of a schedule of number of infraction points necessary to invoke a ban.​
• c. Specific number of infraction points varying automatically with category / type / severity of infraction.​
• 4. Transparency or “sunshine” laws.
• a. Introduction of the “sunshine” concept to enhance transparency – open court​
• b. Open Legislative side for more member input, i.e. this entire thread.​
• c. Accessible documentation of past infractions and resulting penalties, i.e. court records.​
• d. Public display of point balances, i.e. convicts’ sentences​
• 5. Rehabilitation.
• a. Expiry rates of infraction points with category / type / severity of infraction.​
• b. Institution of a post ban “parole” period, including some functional restrictions on member’s rights.​
• c. “Post ban” review and interaction with member before reinstatement, i.e. “parole hearing”​
• d. Institution of a post ban “parole” period, including some functional restrictions on member’s rights.​
• e. Establishment of a panel of Mods whose sole duty would be handling reinstatement issues.​
• f. Establishment of a “user group” (subforum) which banned members would have access.​
• g. Restricting read access of a “banned member’s user-group” to Moderators and Administration.​
• 6. Sunset provision for current system.
• a. Return to essentially the same system as that which was in place prior to the current one.​
• b. Maintain current system “as is”, for some period into the future, i.e. status quo.​
• i. Suggest perhaps an annual review?​
• 7. Trial by tribunal / jury of your peers.
• a.Convening of a group discussion prior to permanent banishment.​
• b. Introduction of some kind of "independent" review process not including the moderator proposing a ban.​
• c. Incorporating the right to face your accuser.​
• i. Proposed clarification of definition of “accuser” to include the member and the mod(s) involved.​
• d. Inadvisability of opening every warning or ban for general debate among the membership.​
• i. Analogous to “trial by jury of your peers” vs “trial by Judge” only.​
• ii. At discretion of defendant to waive right to trial by jury?​
• e. Invoking of the right to “appeal” a decision to an independent group, i.e. a “Court of appeals”.​
• f. Applying additional penalties as “court costs” for invoking review process.​
• 8. General procedure / miscellaneous.
• a. A reversal of the order in which “points” are handled, i.e. starting out with a certain amount of points which are then reduced with each infraction, and associated point [/i]restoration[/i] process.​
• b. Striving for more “integrity” on the part of all moderators.​
• c. Assertion that warnings without associated infraction points are little more than detraction.​
• d. Definitions given for procedural, interactional, interpersonal and informational justice.​
• e. Numerous past examples for illustration purposes.​
• f. Elimination of all moderation, i.e. anarchy. *cough* Cesspool as far as this particular thread?​

=========================================================

Chronological sourcing of “suggestions” categorized above:

1. OP, by JamesR – Standardized vs Variable length bans.
2. OP, by JamesR – Infraction points to be earned for “temp-bans” as well as “warnings”.
3. OP, by JamesR – Potential minimum ban length of two weeks.
4. OP, by JamesR – Establishment of a scheduled of number of infraction points necessary to invoke a ban.
5. OP, by JamesR – Retention of moderator’s discretion for short temporary bans.
6. OP, by JamesR – Return to essentially the same system as that which was in place prior to the current one.
7. OP, by JamesR – Automatic bans based on amount of accumulated infraction points.
8. OP, by JamesR – Convening of a group discussion prior to permanent banishment.
9. OP, by JamesR – Specific number of infraction points varying automatically with category / type / severity of infraction.
10. OP, by JamesR – Expiry rates of infraction points with category / type / severity of infraction.
11. OP, by JamesR – Maintain current system “as is”, for some period into the future, i.e. status quo.
12. Post 2, by Randwolf - Incorporating the right to face your accuser. (Note: Definitional issues with “accuser”)
13. Post 3, by JamesR – Inadvisability of opening every warning or ban for general debate among the membership.
14. Post 3, by JamesR – Introduction of some kind of "independent" review process not including the moderator proposing a ban.
15. Post 3, by JamesR – Applying additional penalties as “court costs” for invoking review process.
16. Post 4, by Randwolf – Proposed clarification of definition of “accuser” to include the member and the mod(s) involved.
17. Post 4, by Randwolf – Introduction of the “sunshine” concept to enhance transparency.
18. Post 5, by CaptainKremmen - Leave the system as is, i.e. "Status Quo".
19. Post 10, by Cifo – A reversal of the order in which “points” are handled, i.e. starting out with a certain amount of points which are then reduced with each infraction, and associated point restoration process.
20. Post 10, by Cifo – Public display of point balances.
21. Post 10, by Cifo – Replacement of permanent bans with bans lasting a year or multiples thereof.
22. Post 11, by Anti-Flag – Application of rules and associated points across all fora, i.e. “consistency” in the rules.
23. Post 12, by S.A.M. – Striving for more “integrity” on the part of all moderators.
24. Post 15, by Cifo – Definitions given for procedural, interactional, interpersonal and informational justice.
25. Post 19, by Skaught – Accessible documentation of past infractions and resulting penalties, i.e. court records.
26. Post 19, by Skaught – “Post ban” review and interaction with member before reinstatement, i.e. “parole hearing”
27. Post 19, by Skaught – Institution of a post ban “parole” period, including some functional restrictions on member’s rights.
28. Post 19, by Skaught – Establishment of a panel of Mods whose sole duty would be handling banishment / reinstatement issues.
29. Post 21, by Mr MacGillivray – Elimination of all moderation, i.e. anarchy.
30. Post 23, by adoucette – Prohibiting the moderator of a given subforum to post in that particular forum, i.e. separation of power.
31. Post 32, Mrs.Lucysnow – Assertion that warnings without associated infraction points are little more than detraction.
32. Post 33, by quadraphonics – Invoking of the right to “appeal” a decision to an independent group, i.e. a “Court of appeals”.
33. Post 54, by Stryder – Tying of permanent bans to the number of times one has been temp-banned.
34. Post 54, by Stryder – Establishment of a “user group” (subforum) which banned members would have access.
35. Post 54, by Stryder – Restricting read access of a “banned member’s user-group” to Moderators and Administration.
36. Post 57, by adoucette – Suggestion to let the moderators do everything they currently do in their own forum(s) except issue Bans.

(I offer my apologies to anyone whose “unique” idea may have been missed. While I attempted to reduce redundancy, I probably just plain missed one or two as well. Also, if the response is there, I will attempt to keep up with ideas as they are presented)



Note to Admin: While being aware of logistical constraints , I have no real idea of what, exactly, they may be. If any proposed tactics are not deemed worthy of the investment, please point such out.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Is there are rule about nonsensical posts? You know like discussing the value of pink hair dryers in a thread about bee hive construction. Not necessarily trolling but just showing up and not making any sense

 

[Gustav]

somebody give randwolf a medal

/awestruck

 

[Me-Ki-Gal]

Wow Randolf we could use you on the Wood for Haiti comity. You seem to understand business planing . We muddle through at slow motion taking days weeks and even months formulating actions . You just whipped out shit in what 20 minutes or less ? You were thinking about it weren't yeah .

 

[Mr MacGillivray]

Bravo to Randolf. Very professional.

 

[skaught]

Randwolf. Thank you for laying that out thusly.

 

[NMSquirrel]

Originally Posted by phlogistician
No it was fucking not! It was a question, '...have you ever met an honest theist?'

I HAVE NOT. That's my personal experience. When I have debated theists, it ALWAYS gets to the point where they say they don't know. THIS IS NOT HOLDING AN HONEST OPINION JAMES

you do not think i am honest?

and "I don't know" is a VERY honest opinion..

 

[quadraphonics]

OMFG Randwolf just won this thread so hard...

 

[Kennyc]

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

I agree.

 

[Believe]

I believe the original system is good. It has a balance between keeping the peace and keeping posters.