A Primer on Moderation

Debates: 564

Posts: 19,922

10.07.2018 09:34PM

-->

@bsh1

I suffered at the hands of a mod who was both cunning and malignant (no, they are not the same thing).

You are no airmax and I couldn't care less that you say you model yourself after him. You are not him one bit and you are a fucking brilliant because of it.

Ignore this whining and when he says:

what you say goes and users just have to suck it up.

Say the following:

Damn right boy, know your place.

Simple as.

#32

Debates: 24

Posts: 618

10.08.2018 05:25AM

-->

@drafterman

all the keys are in your pocket, what you say goes and users just have to suck it up.

Transparency wouldn't make this any less true.

#33

Debates: 6

Posts: 5,653

10.08.2018 11:20AM

-->

@Death23

No, but it'd make it more honest.

#34

Debates: 24

Posts: 618

10.08.2018 09:58PM

-->

@drafterman

I agree that transparency would discourage abusive moderation practices and provide some accountability. It would probably also improve user compliance with the CoC because users would have a greater awareness of the consequences of violating it.

Transparency is already the status quo in vote moderation. Why is vote moderation transparent while other moderation isn't? I think it has to do with the privacy interest (or pretense); the reality that moderators don't like accountability (nobody does); and the consequences of voting moderation. Votes are very public and everyone is going to start asking questions if there isn't transparency with voting moderation. The privacy interest is outweighed by the practical interests. With other moderation though, does the privacy interest outweigh the benefits of transparency? I would say that in some cases, yes, but in other it doesn't. If it were a moderation action that was coming from an entirely private issue (e.g. coming from PM's only), then the users would have an expectation of privacy there. But if it were already a public matter (e.g. forum threads, debate comments, etc.) then the users had no expectation of privacy to begin with and the privacy interest of the users would be limited to the moderation action itself rather than the content of the user to user communications which lead to the moderation action. So, in the latter circumstances, I would agree that transparency is more beneficial. However, there is the time cost associated with providing transparency. You know, publicly documenting what happened and what lead to it and what standards were applied. This could be rather burdensome and, depending on how much time is available to the moderators, it might not be worth it to do that. The value of their time isn't clear.

10 days later

#35

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,222

10.19.2018 12:34PM

-->

@drafterman

Well, you could, but it's clear from experience you won't. The process is more opqaue and obtuse than it needs to be, beyond any issues of user privacy.

What's a description of the moderation system you'd rather see?

#36

Debates: 6

Posts: 5,653

10.19.2018 12:46PM

-->

@Castin

I think there should be minimal interpretation. I would prefer moderation that is less a group of individuals implementing a broad philosophical framework and more along the lines of human robots implementing a concise set of rules (and only because AI isn't developed enough to do it automatically.)

Based on the moderator's commentary and the CoC as written: it's completely pointless. The mods can decide or not decide that any behavior is in line with, or against the CoC, whether or not that behavior is explicitly permitted or disallowed by the CoC. It's all up to their discretion without appeal. In which case, why have a CoC? It literally doesn't matter.

I want a CoC that matters. Which means strict enforcement. Note that "strict enforcement" doesn't mean "strict moderation." It means the "strictness" of the moderation is dependent only upon the rules not the disposition of the moderator. Allah forbid that bsh1, Virtuoso, and Tej get hit by a trolley by some callous utilitarian and another group of moderators decide to step into their shoes, but have a drastically different style of moderation. There is nothing stopping that because, as a site, we've decided that this is Ok. That our moderation can be dictated solely be the mood of the moderators. We're ok with divesting great power in them because we've decided that they're ok guys and they're going to use it responsibly.

Nonsense. Power should be limited by statute not by the personalities of whoever is wielding it. Moderators should have absolutely 0 input in how the site should be moderated. They should only be implementing a predetermined set of rules, and nothing more.

Take note that forum and voting moderation is treated in completely opposite fashions. Forum commenters can get away with just about anything. You can curse, abuse, and explicitly violate the CoC and nothing (apparent) happens. It is all opaque and no one (other than the mods and possible violators) know if anything is even happening.

Compare that with voting which is very heavily scrutinized with a fine-toothed come, and moderator reactions are very public and explicit.

Why the two forms of moderation on the same site? Well, I have my opinions as to why votes are treated so preciously while forum comments are an afterthought, but that's irrelevant. The point is, there should be a single moderation style. Or, if we want different moderation styles for different aspects of the site, have a different set of rules and moderators implementing each.

EDIT: Additionally, I think there is something to be said that the people who make up the moderation team should be separate and distinct from the people who make up the Code of Conduct. By having them be the same people, you end up with a group that has an emotionally vested interest in the rules as intended rather than rules as written and a propensity to ignore mistakes in moderation which inevitable leads to moderator abuse.

#37

Debates: 564

Posts: 19,922

10.19.2018 02:23PM

You cannot remove subjectivity from a human scheme of power. Let to play the game, stop sitting and crying.

#38

Debates: 1

Posts: 5,875

10.19.2018 05:21PM

Based on the moderator's commentary and the CoC as written: it's completely pointless. The mods can decide or not decide that any behavior is in line with, or against the CoC, whether or not that behavior is explicitly permitted or disallowed by the CoC. It's all up to their discretion without appeal. In which case, why have a CoC? It literally doesn't matter. It's all up to their discretion without appeal. In which case, why have a CoC? It literally doesn't matter.

Oh my God, this is excellent!

Mike, this is important. Pay attention to this. Drafterman is making a point that will prove to be probably the most important question asked of this young site. As it stands, our CoC means nothing. Any mod can call anything a CoC violation. Anything at all.

So I ask along with Drafterman. Why have a CoC? It literally doesn't matter. It is currently a sham that only allows cover to an abusive mod.

#39

Debates: 564

Posts: 19,922

10.19.2018 05:59PM

-->

@ethang5

Because said discretion is equally benevolent as malevolent. Literal law has never been a good justice system in real life and is why most nation's enable judges discretion and some flexibility in punishment and application of laws to cases as well enabling exceptions to occur.

#40

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,222

10.20.2018 02:31AM

-->

@drafterman

Nice. Thanks for taking the time to write that out for me.

I can see quite a bit of truth there. Interpretive power does diminish the power of the rules themselves, in practice. But I think RationalMadman hit the nail on the head: you can't remove subjectivity or the human element from a system of power. Statutes cannot rule by themselves; they always need people to enforce them. We're never going to get robots, and I'm not entirely sure I would want them. The rules may be clear, but whether someone has violated them often isn't, and robots can't make interpretive judgments (yet).

In the meantime I'll freely admit that I'm simply placing my trust in the personalities of our moderators, but I'm not entirely hopeless that a compromise can't be reached which addresses your concerns, as I think you make valid points. I'm not sure what form such a compromise would take. I'd be interested in hearing suggestions.

Take note that forum and voting moderation is treated in completely opposite fashions. Forum commenters can get away with just about anything. You can curse, abuse, and explicitly violate the CoC and nothing (apparent) happens. It is all opaque and no one (other than the mods and possible violators) know if anything is even happening.

Compare that with voting which is very heavily scrutinized with a fine-toothed come, and moderator reactions are very public and explicit.

I've heard moderation say many times now that this is to protect the privacy rights of members. Your "criminal record" is personal and sensitive information. Your votes on debates aren't, really. So I can understand why these two realms are treated differently.

EDIT: Additionally, I think there is something to be said that the people who make up the moderation team should be separate and distinct from the people who make up the Code of Conduct. By having them be the same people, you end up with a group that has an emotionally vested interest in the rules as intended rather than rules as written and a propensity to ignore mistakes in moderation which inevitable leads to moderator abuse.

Another point I find true but unavoidable. But I think bish would make every effort to ensure the rules as written reflect the rules as intended. The only time I saw someone who seemed to violate the rules as written without being penalized was when Vaarka said "you're all idiots" shortly after the CoC went up. But since moderation is private, I have no idea how that was really handled.

#41

Debates: 6

Posts: 5,653

10.20.2018 02:47AM

I can see quite a bit of truth there. Interpretive power does diminish the power of the rules themselves, in practice. But I think RationalMadman hit the nail on the head: you can't remove subjectivity or the human element from a system of power.

Right. But we can minimize it. Right now it is maximized. If the argument is: We can't eliminate it completely, so we should turn the dial up to 11. Then I disagree. It's like saying, we can't cure cancer right now, so let's actively give it to people.

Statutes cannot rule by themselves; they always need people to enforce them.

Statutes? It's just rules on a web site on the internet. I find these depictions of the moderation here as some sort of government as laughable. The moderation on this sight isn't a government and has none of the qualities of a desirable government.

In the meantime I'll freely admit that I'm simply placing my trust in the personalities of our moderators, but I'm not entirely hopeless that a compromise can't be reached which addresses your concerns, as I think you make valid points. I'm not sure what form such a compromise would take. I'd be interested in hearing suggestions.

The moderation isn't interested in a compromise and has no incentive to reach a compromise. They have all the power, are the final say in how the site is run (even trumping the site owner, apparently). There is literally no reason why they would willingly give any of that up.

I've heard moderation say many times now that this is to protect the privacy rights of members. Your "criminal record" is personal and sensitive information. Your votes on debates aren't, really. So I can understand why these two realms are treated differently.

Huh? Your comments are as public as your votes. Yet if your vote violates the CoC, there is a specifically tailored message explaining that it was reported, evaluated, and what moderation action was taken, with all the ways you fucked up. Yet when that applies to a forum comment it is magically a violation of privacy?

Like, you can't even ask a mod if a comment violates the CoC and they won't even answer hypothetical questions on comments. Yet you'll get a 5 page treatise on how and why votes are good or bad.

EDIT: Additionally, I think there is something to be said that the people who make up the moderation team should be separate and distinct from the people who make up the Code of Conduct. By having them be the same people, you end up with a group that has an emotionally vested interest in the rules as intended rather than rules as written and a propensity to ignore mistakes in moderation which inevitable leads to moderator abuse.
Another point I find true but unavoidable.

How is this unavoidable? Every single thing in that paragraph is something that can be avoided. Don't have moderators who were involved in making the rules. Simple as that.

But I think bish would make every effort to ensure the rules as written reflect the rules as intended. The only time I saw someone who seemed to violate the rules as written without being penalized was when Vaarka said "you're all idiots" shortly after the CoC went up. But since moderation is private, I have no idea how that was really handled.

And yet if that was a vote, we'd have a very public demonstration as to whether or not it violated the CoC and whether that comment was deleted. See the difference and double standard?

Also, I don't have as high opinion of bsh as you do.

#42

Debates: 6

Posts: 5,653

10.20.2018 02:48AM

-->

@Castin

See above

#43

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,222

10.20.2018 12:20PM

-->

@drafterman

Right. But we can minimize it. Right now it is maximized. If the argument is: We can't eliminate it completely, so we should turn the dial up to 11. Then I disagree. It's like saying, we can't cure cancer right now, so let's actively give it to people.

How do you suggest we minimize it? Other than a third party CoC rewrite.

You don't really need to read any further. The rest of my post is just addressing your points rather than advancing the discussion.

Statutes? It's just rules on a web site on the internet. I find these depictions of the moderation here as some sort of government as laughable. The moderation on this sight isn't a government and has none of the qualities of a desirable government.

I took the word statutes from your remark "power should be limited by statute not by the personalities of whoever is wielding it". I interpreted this as analogous to forum rules.

The moderation isn't interested in a compromise and has no incentive to reach a compromise. They have all the power, are the final say in how the site is run (even trumping the site owner, apparently). There is literally no reason why they would willingly give any of that up.

I'm unaware of what they're interested in, but I'm well aware they have the final say. This isn't a democracy, though the mods do seem to have democratic values. But the first step in convincing them to make changes would probably be to give constructive suggestions. It may not work, but I think just complaining about their policies is even less likely to work.

Huh? Your comments are as public as your votes. Yet if your vote violates the CoC, there is a specifically tailored message explaining that it was reported, evaluated, and what moderation action was taken, with all the ways you fucked up. Yet when that applies to a forum comment it is magically a violation of privacy?

Like, you can't even ask a mod if a comment violates the CoC and they won't even answer hypothetical questions on comments. Yet you'll get a 5 page treatise on how and why votes are good or bad.

I probably shouldn't be speaking for the mods here. Only they can answer why the rules treat these things differently. But I think formal debates are always over issues, not the people arguing them. Whereas on the forum, you can get in personal flamewars that are only about the people arguing them. These flamewars can involve embarrassing doxxing, nasty behavior that reformed members who are trying to turn over a new leaf would rather not be remembered, and all manner of sensitive content that would not be exposed in a formal debate. But fair point that both votes and posts are public and we all know that when we make them. To an extent, bish's privacy policy is protecting people from their own decisions.

How is this unavoidable? Every single thing in that paragraph is something that can be avoided. Don't have moderators who were involved in making the rules. Simple as that.

We'd need to find a convenient new person to draft the rules, someone who is an authority on moderation yet is not interested in moderating, and then bish and the others would need to agree to erase the current rules and replace them with the new ones. Which they won't do if they don't see anything wrong with the rules as they are. I can see them making the argument that content is more important than source.

And I doubt Mike would draft it. Writing and enforcing the rules is the job he gave to bish and the others. Taking that task off his hands was the whole point.

And yet if that was a vote, we'd have a very public demonstration as to whether or not it violated the CoC and whether that comment was deleted. See the difference and double standard?

Also, I don't have as high opinion of bsh as you do.

I hadn't noticed. You should really make that clearer, man. All the glowing praise and sycophantic adulation really gives people mixed signals.

I'm not trying to be an apologist or anything. I was shooting for fair. I do appreciate that I'd probably be singing a different tune here if I had personally been sanctioned by the mods.

#44

Debates: 6

Posts: 5,653

10.20.2018 12:41PM

-->

@Castin

Either have a third party rewrite it, or place the moderation team.

#45

Debates: 1

Posts: 5,875

10.20.2018 08:06PM

I do appreciate that I'd probably be singing a different tune here if I had personally been sanctioned by the mods.

So if you couldn't be objective and fair, why do you automatically believe the mods would?

I left DDO and I'm back at DDO with the same no oversight mod ruling the board by whim. This is not what I signed up for.

Topic's author

#46

Debates: 14

Posts: 2,589

10.20.2018 11:42PM

-->

@ethang5

Please report misconduct you encounter. Mods cannot take action about misconduct of which we are unaware.

#47

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,222

10.22.2018 04:06AM

-->

@ethang5

I do appreciate that I'd probably be singing a different tune here if I had personally been sanctioned by the mods.
So if you couldn't be objective and fair, why do you automatically believe the mods would?

I left DDO and I'm back at DDO with the same no oversight mod ruling the board by whim. This is not what I signed up for.

Well that comment was my attempt at being objective and fair. I guess it was a flop. 🙁

It would be cool if you could give me some specific examples of their lack of oversight so I know just what exactly they're letting people get away with. I have suspicions about which problem members will be in your answer, but I'd like to be certain. I've already told you elsewhere that the religion forum did seem to be a bit worse when I came back, but I haven't seen anything explicitly reportable. I'm interested to know if you've reported anyone, and what the mod response was, if so.

#48

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,222

10.22.2018 04:37AM

-->

@drafterman

Either have a third party rewrite it, or place the moderation team.

Do you mean replace it? I was hoping for something more within the realm of possibility. And I did ask for a suggestion other than a CoC rewrite.

Suppose a third party does write up a new CoC, but it's basically the same as the one we already have. Which seems likely because all sites have roughly similar rules. Is it worth it to go to the trouble of replacing the current CoC with a new CoC that says basically the same things, just so we can say the acting mods didn't write it?

#49

Debates: 1

Posts: 5,875

10.22.2018 09:17AM

-->

@Castin

A re-write does absolutely nothing if the mods are still free to call anything, and I mean anything, a CoC violation.

Thinking about this, the deal between Mike and bsh1 must have long preceded the announcement of his modship. Maybe it happened during the DDO days. For Mike to turn over everything, lock stock and barrel, and bsh1 to pretty much assert openly that he trumps the owner, smacks of deeper things going on.

The bottom line is, no matter how much bsh1 demeans Mikes moderation, Mike was right. Bsh1's moderation would have wrecked the board. There is no argument against success.

Bsh1 has always sought out power. He did so at DDO, and has done so here. Anyway, it's a done deal, so I'm through with it.

#50

Debates: 6

Posts: 5,653

10.22.2018 11:05AM

-->

@Castin

It has to be coupled with a moderation team that is actually going to enforce it as written, which we don't have. But I suppose the answer to your question is whether or not you see inherent value in separating legislative and executive powers.

#51

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,222

10.22.2018 11:32AM

-->

@ethang5

Wow. You guys are... very intense about this.

What did you think about the points made in post #24 of this thread?

Fwiw, I do remember that "whoa, finally! a sheriff in town!" feeling I got when Mike first bounced a few members who displayed problem behavior. I didn't want them permabanned or anything, but I felt their behavior largely contributed to the deterioration of one of the DDO forums, and it was really nice to see a mod who seemed like he wasn't going to let that happen.

A re-write does absolutely nothing if the mods are still free to call anything, and I mean anything, a CoC violation.

Anything like...?

#52

Debates: 6

Posts: 5,653

10.22.2018 06:29PM

-->

@Castin

I didn't come out with the intention of being this intense. When I first provided my feedback of the CoC, I was being deliberately uncritical of the content and how it was to be implemented. However, when Vaarka came in with an explicit violation, and bsh1 basically refused to comment on it, even in a hypothetical capacity, I admit that that just stoked some ire in me.

His stance in general, and his actions in particular, bear a heavy level of scrutiny and should not go unchecked. I have seen some significant cracks in the integrity of the system overall, a position that has infected the entire moderation team, who will basically parrot each other on any given issue.

In regards to bsh1 post in #24. The first thing that sticks to to me is this idea that the owner of the site shouldn't be the final judge in what goes on with the site he owns. Like, what world is bsh1 living in? Mike created this site. He put in his own time and money, but he doesn't get to say how it is run?

The rest of it is all based upon that singularly insane premise. Issue of practicality are just that: issues of practicality. It's certainly fine for Mike to delegate moderation, but I don't see how that delegation requires him to literally cede his own authority. That's not delegation, that's abdication. The way bsh1 describes it, he's in charge of the site and Mike is just the techie guy he has on hand to deal with the annoying coding stuff.

And he basically says that unless this is the case, there might as well not be a moderation team. Of course that's stupid. But the subtext here is: he won't moderate unless he's at the top of the food chain.

#53

DebateArt.com

Debates: 0

Posts: 1,403

DebateArt.com

10.23.2018 08:49AM

I haven't read most of the topic though, just wanted to point some things out.

First of all, I distanced myself from the moderation because I'd simply be a terrible moderator. Not only I have no experience whatsoever, also considering where I come from, most likely I have completely different mentality so that wouldn't help too much either. But it doesn't mean I am not here, I am just trying to manage the bigger picture, if that makes sense. Regarding the current mods, I think the guys are doing a good job and I really appreciate their help and effort. Obviously, it's impossible to make everyone satisfied with everything and I think that's normal and expected. But if for some reason situation gets outta hand, which I doubt it will, then I will, of course, interfere.

Topic's author

#54

Debates: 14

Posts: 2,589

10.23.2018 04:05PM

-->

@DebateArt.com

Moderation was promised wide latitude and autonomy in enforcing the rules. That is not the same as absolute autonomy.

#55

Debates: 1

Posts: 5,875

10.25.2018 03:22PM

But that is not the impression you gave us.

371 days later

#56

Debates: 1

Posts: 5,875