Moderation Policy: Proposed Changes

Author: bsh1 ,

Topic's posts

Read-only
Posts in total: 46
  • bsh1
    bsh1 avatar
    Debates: 14
    Forum posts: 2,589
    5
    5
    8
    bsh1 avatar
    bsh1
    Since the "suggestion box" threads have died down, I am posting this thread to propose certain changes to moderation policy. I would like feedback on these proposed changes, and to know what the community thinks of these changes. I understand there is a desire for moderation to change how it moderates, and Virt and I are committed to working towards reflecting community values to the greatest possible extent. I believe these proposals are a start, but certainly not a finish, regarding that endeavor. Some of these proposals would require technical changes, and all would require Mike's final approval. Please review the proposals and offer your questions, comments, and thoughts.

    1. No longer post vote remove notices on FF, troll, or conceded debates
    2. Whenever a vote is borderline, default to considering it sufficient (currently implemented)
    3. Whenever a vote is removed, explain--briefly--how the voter could improve (currently implemented)
    4. No longer post detailed analysis in notices on non-removed votes
    5. Allow only debaters and voters to report votes on debates (this may require non-anonymous reporting)
    6. Reinstate anonymous reporting
    7. Allow users to summarily post the contents of mod PMs so long as no non-public information about other users (other = not the sender or receiver of the PM) is revealed by the revelation.
    8. Lock objectionable or COC-violating threads instead of deleting them, unless leaving them up would severely breach a user's privacy or safety rights
    9. Allow mods to disclose the reasons for a ban, via PM, upon request by a user
    10. Cap the number of vote reports that a user can make per day at 10
    11. No longer prohibit the use of slurs so long as those slurs are not intended to render insult to the subject of the comment
    12. Make all significant changes in mod policy subject to a mandatory 2-day public comment period

    Again, please feel free to comment and offer your thoughts. I will be posting a discussion on other mod topics (like voting) this upcoming weekend. This thread will be open for feedback for a few days, until interest in this thread dies down.


  • drafterman
    drafterman avatar
    Debates: 6
    Forum posts: 4,845
    3
    6
    9
    drafterman avatar
    drafterman
    1. No longer post vote remove notices on FF, troll, or conceded debates
    Agree

    2. Whenever a vote is borderline, default to considering it sufficient (currently implemented)
    I think you missed the obvious intention of this. Virtuouso suggested this. Being a mod and not an idiot we can discount the possibility that he was suggesting, as a change, something that is currently implemented. Clearly he meant votes that are borderline that would be removed by the current obnoxious voting standards instead be default to being considered sufficient.

    4. No longer post detailed analyzes in notices on non-removed votes 
    Agree

    5. Allow only debaters and voters to report votes on debates (this requires non-anonymous reporting)
    Disagree

    6. Reinstate anonymous reporting
    Agree. This should be #1 priority.

    7. Allow users to summarily post the contents of mod PMs so long as no non-public information about other users (other = not the sender or receiver of the PM) is revealed by the revelation.
    Agree.

    8. Locking objectionable or COC-violating threads instead of deleting them, unless leaving them up would severely breach a user's privacy or safety rights
    Ambivalent.

    9. Allow mods to disclose the reasons for a ban, via PM, upon request by a user
    Ambivalent.

    10. Cap the number of vote reports that a user can make per day at 10
    Agree

    11. No longer prohibit the use of slurs so long as those slurs are not intended to render insult to the subject of the comment
    Ambivalent

    12. Make all significant changes in mod policy subject to a 2-day public commentary period
    YA THINK
  • Castin
    Castin avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,981
    3
    2
    6
    Castin avatar
    Castin

  • bsh1
    bsh1 avatar
    Debates: 14
    Forum posts: 2,589
    5
    5
    8
    bsh1 avatar
    bsh1
    @Drafterman

    I think you missed the obvious intention of this. Virtuouso suggested this. Being a mod and not an idiot we can discount the possibility that he was suggesting, as a change, something that is currently implemented.
    In fact, I suggested it, but this is being posted here for comment to allow users to object to it if they want. Obviously, it's already implemented, but I still want community feedback on whether it should continue to be in place.


    Thanks for your comments on the other suggestions.
  • bsh1
    bsh1 avatar
    Debates: 14
    Forum posts: 2,589
    5
    5
    8
    bsh1 avatar
    bsh1
    --> @Castin
    Do you agree with all of the proposed changes?
  • Castin
    Castin avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,981
    3
    2
    6
    Castin avatar
    Castin
    --> @bsh1
    Pardon me -- yes, I agree. Though I'm still holding out for draft's argument against #5.

    Concerning #11 -- I'm all for it, but intentions are tricky to police. What are your thoughts on that?
  • drafterman
    drafterman avatar
    Debates: 6
    Forum posts: 4,845
    3
    6
    9
    drafterman avatar
    drafterman
    --> @Castin
    Basically it effectively removes anonymity and can be abused by a malicious debater. If any vote is removed, everyone will know who did it and I think that'd create undo pressure. Credit really goes to Wylted for this line of reasoning.
  • Tyrone
    Tyrone avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 103
    0
    2
    5
    Tyrone avatar
    Tyrone
    --> @bsh1
    11. No longer prohibit the use of slurs so long as those slurs are not intended to render insult to the subject of the comment
    MY NIGGAAAA

    I appreciate that you're seriously considering this. Makes me regret declaring that you'd never change.

  • bsh1
    bsh1 avatar
    Debates: 14
    Forum posts: 2,589
    5
    5
    8
    bsh1 avatar
    bsh1
    --> @Tyrone
    Lol

    (though seriously...just call me bsh).
  • Castin
    Castin avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,981
    3
    2
    6
    Castin avatar
    Castin
    --> @drafterman
    That's a good point. You'd have a short list of suspects who may have made the report. Common knowledge of the personalities on that list could let you narrow it down even further.

  • RationalMadman
    RationalMadman avatar
    Debates: 305
    Forum posts: 8,991
    10
    10
    11
    RationalMadman avatar
    RationalMadman
    I agree with drafterman on disagreeing with 5 for totally different reasons.
  • RationalMadman
    RationalMadman avatar
    Debates: 305
    Forum posts: 8,991
    10
    10
    11
    RationalMadman avatar
    RationalMadman
    I am completely against #6 for the same reason that I differ to drafterman on why I disagree with 5.
  • RationalMadman
    RationalMadman avatar
    Debates: 305
    Forum posts: 8,991
    10
    10
    11
    RationalMadman avatar
    RationalMadman
    It should all revolve around credibility and built rep. Idgaf what a narcissistic fool you think me to be, statistically if you know behind the scenes how accurate my reporting is and how high volume it is in spite of that you'd know I live up to my standard here:

    higher repped reporters should have their reports considered first, etc. Reputation for RM is currently shit-tier socially and that's irrelevant to this kind of rep I speak of.
  • RationalMadman
    RationalMadman avatar
    Debates: 305
    Forum posts: 8,991
    10
    10
    11
    RationalMadman avatar
    RationalMadman
    In fact my stance on almost all of these can be explained by my mentality in the above post.
  • Wylted
    Wylted avatar
    Debates: 26
    Forum posts: 2,603
    3
    4
    9
    Wylted avatar
    Wylted
    Why not just mod appropriately to begin with instead of waiting until you start a shit storm? I think virtuous would have just avoided the shit storm to start with and done things appropriately.
  • RationalMadman
    RationalMadman avatar
    Debates: 305
    Forum posts: 8,991
    10
    10
    11
    RationalMadman avatar
    RationalMadman
    I don't agree to Wylted on this, this is very good of you bsh1; a step in the right direction. Keep making threads like this.
  • bsh1
    bsh1 avatar
    Debates: 14
    Forum posts: 2,589
    5
    5
    8
    bsh1 avatar
    bsh1
    Bump
  • Smithereens
    Smithereens avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 502
    2
    1
    4
    Smithereens avatar
    Smithereens
    very nice. 
  • bsh1
    bsh1 avatar
    Debates: 14
    Forum posts: 2,589
    5
    5
    8
    bsh1 avatar
    bsh1
    --> @Smithereens
    Does that mean you agree with all 12 points?
  • RationalMadman
    RationalMadman avatar
    Debates: 305
    Forum posts: 8,991
    10
    10
    11
    RationalMadman avatar
    RationalMadman
    --> @bsh1
    I believe everyone agrees with #1 just so you know.
  • ethang5
    ethang5 avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 4,737
    3
    3
    6
    ethang5 avatar
    ethang5
    --> @bsh1

    1. No longer post vote remove notices on FF, troll, or conceded debates
    Agree.

    2. Whenever a vote is borderline, default to considering it sufficient (currently implemented)
    Agree. Though "borderline" is vague. How also about if another mod disagrees, default to considering it sufficient?

    3. Whenever a vote is removed, explain--briefly--how the voter could improve (currently implemented)
    Agree.

    4. No longer post detailed analysis in notices on non-removed votes
    Agree.

    5. Allow only debaters and voters to report votes on debates (this may require non-anonymous reporting)
    Agree. This would stop the people with agendas from mass reporting votes to a mod known to be partial to progressive positions.

    6. Reinstate anonymous reporting
    Disagree. Why does it need to be anonymous?

    7. Allow users to summarily post the contents of mod PMs so long as no non-public information about other users (other = not the sender or receiver of the PM) is revealed by the revelation.
    Agree.

    8. Lock objectionable or COC-violating threads instead of deleting them, unless leaving them up would severely breach a user's privacy or safety rights
    Not sure. Leaving them up would only make threads about COC-violating threads more tempting to trolls looking for quick drama.

    9. Allow mods to disclose the reasons for a ban, via PM, upon request by a user
    Disagree. This creates unnecessary work for the mods. Why a member is banned is no one's business anyway.

    10. Cap the number of vote reports that a user can make per day at 10.
    Agree, but maybe 10 is too high.

    11. No longer prohibit the use of slurs so long as those slurs are not intended to render insult to the subject of the comment
    Agreed. Hate directed to whole groups excepted.

    12. Make all significant changes in mod policy subject to a mandatory 2-day public comment period
    Agreed.
  • RationalMadman
    RationalMadman avatar
    Debates: 305
    Forum posts: 8,991
    10
    10
    11
    RationalMadman avatar
    RationalMadman
    --> @bsh1
    I am completely against 5 and 6 and am willing to have an official debate with you about it in a formal manner if you want.
  • Smithereens
    Smithereens avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 502
    2
    1
    4
    Smithereens avatar
    Smithereens
    --> @bsh1
    Does that mean you agree with all 12 points?
    #5 is the only one I could anticipate issues with. If nobody is voting on a debate, and the one vote present is a violation of the CoC it's guaranteed protection from the community at large. Not all users may be willing to use report features even when they know another user ought to be reported, so perhaps putting the onus of reporting on the debater essentially may not bring about a net benefit.

    There's also the issue of newb debaters not knowing that they've just been vote bombed and being led to believe that it's a normal way of voting. 

  • RationalMadman
    RationalMadman avatar
    Debates: 305
    Forum posts: 8,991
    10
    10
    11
    RationalMadman avatar
    RationalMadman
    --> @Smithereens
    and much more such as humble debaters who don't like the stigma of reporting their own debate's votes and debaters who know it will be obvious they reported a vote FOR them resulting in beef with the voter in future etc
  • bsh1
    bsh1 avatar
    Debates: 14
    Forum posts: 2,589
    5
    5
    8
    bsh1 avatar
    bsh1
    Bump