bsh1

That's an interesting change of opinion. When given the option to vote on whether moderation should "lock objectionable or COC-violating threads instead of deleting them" you replied "ambivalent." 

Drafter, if you recall very early back in my modship, many users protested at my removing posts which violated the COC, insisting that doing so was overkill. This desire was seemingly confirmed when the community voted to lock call out threads rather than simply deleting them. Moderation no longer deletes posts in less they include links to adult content, doxxing information, or credible threats of violence or doxxing.

Okaaaaaayyyyyy then.

Anyway, imma stop posting before this gif stuff derails the thread. 

Okies.

Besides, I've never kept track of who donates. No one gets to buy their way out of moderation.

Sure, but you brought them up in the course of our conversation, which is why I phrased my reply that way. But I take your point.

I'm a moderator, RM. It's part of my job description to issue warnings (including pointing out the consequences of misconduct) and to maintain order--and that post of mine was a very clear reminder to you that threats of that kind will not be tolerated. Period. You cannot excuse threatening other users by appealing to some misguided sense of victimhood. 

Raltar, I am not sure I agree with your conclusions, and I know others would disagree as well. That said, even if I did agree with your conclusions, my hands are tied to a large extent. Moderation is not answerable to the community per se, but neither can it ignore the vociferously expressed will of the community--which has consistently argued for laxer moderation in all respects. It is a dilemma that moderation is attempting to navigate as best it can, but the kind of arguments you're making are best addressed to the community as a whole, not just to me as a moderator. I am happy to facilitate such a discussion if there is some way I can help, but otherwise, I don't have room to maneuver to do what you're suggesting moderation does.

Okie dokie. I'm sure you'll live.

Now we're getting into credible threat territory. I am deleting that post; if you make one like it again, you will be re-banned.

If you're making true statements that are not in the form of call-out threads and that aren't laced with other insults, I don't have a problem with it. 

RM, that is pretty clearly a threat of reporting/instigating mod action to other users. Please avoid those kinds of statements in public in the future--that this is inappropriate has be communicated to you a number of times.

Moreover, you are a serial doxxer; your history on DDO and with the user in question is sufficient proof of that. The truth is not defamation.

Welcome back. I am glad you have decided to "clean up your act."

The answer to this question is quite simple: because the community has quite forcefully asked moderation not to do this. Moderation started out by deleting posts and threads which violated the COC, but the community felt this approach to be too heavy-handed.

If a post was doxxing someone or making credible threats of violence or doxxing against another user, it would be deleted on sight. However, posts that call other users "cunts" for example are no longer deleted, though they do count against the posting user or users. Call-out threads are now locked when they are identified, so that they quickly fall out of the first page of any forum and so that they can no longer be used as spaces to actively bash others (in fact, the locking alternative to deletion was voted for in a user referendum held by moderation). However, moderation does not do deletion in most cases because it has tried to be responsive to the demands of other community members.

If the individual in question was harassing you during the RO's active period, you needed to notify moderation so that we could enforce the RO. Moderation was not aware of any violation made against you during the RO period.

Unfortunately, that's probably true. That said, I don't think it is appropriate to leap straight to perm-banning "trolls." Everyone deserves chances to improve their conduct and reintegrate successfully into the site, and I think it would be adversely heavy-handed (and also perceived as overkill) to leap right in to perm-bans for "trolls." Bans, as they pile up on a recalcitrant individual, do escalate in length, but a perm-ban would require quite a few temp-bans leading up to it or an insanely severe act of misconduct such as doxxing another user. Doxxing is certainly one way to earn an instant perm-ban.

Again, the issue with public speculation against bans is that the general user base is not privy to all that went in to those discussions. Moreover, users were most certainly banned on DDO for making personal attacks. 

But, I agree with Raltar that moderation needs to expand the spectrum of options available to it in seeking to reign in member misconduct. The nothing-ban dichotomy is not really working, and make moderation appear either lazy and dismissive or overzealous and heavy-handed. To that end, I have been thinking of ways to implement non-ban solutions to issues, such as restraining orders. One example of such a solution was the choice I gave Poly before she was banned: either abstain from posting in the forums for 2 days or be banned for 3. She chose the latter, but she did, importantly, have a choice. I imagine such options, or features which allow moderation to temporarily suspend privileges such as making forum posts, will enable moderation to broaden its spectrum of deployable enforcement mechanisms so that there can be fewer bans with less disruption of users' site experience. Ultimately, it is important to me as a mod that we be minimally intrusive while still enforcing the COC as best we can, and that means implementing solutions like the one I did with Poly.

Lol. That's perfect :)

So far, the longest ban issued to any specific user has been 10 days. 

If he repeats, the ban will be much, much longer. But, again, I would prefer to err on the side of not being heavy-handed. But multi-accounting is, in my mind, a serious offense, and so after this slap on the wrist, there is not much room for leniency.

Thanks, I suppose. I am trying to explore giving users non-ban options for punishments, as I did with Poly, to help make moderation feel less onerous.

Me too, lol. Whoops.

And before anyone asks, Poly was banned for frequently making personal attacks, such that they accumulated into an un-ignorable mass. She was given a choice between 2 days of not posting in the forums (allowing her to still make use of the site in other ways) or being banned for 3 days. By posting above, she chose the latter option.

If that does occur, I don't think we need to do that retroactively, for accounts which already exist. But yeah, it might be a useful feature to have when users create an account. I also think to create an account, users should be required to fill out a captcha (but only when they create the account, not when they log in to an existing account).

Yes, and so next time please PM me instead of creating a thread like this.

Correct. He admitted to his misconduct when confronted, and was warned about his behavior when first caught. After we discovered that he was continuing to create multis even after the warning, we were forced to act.

Every time a user gets banned, it does not require some kind of public announcement thread asking why. Just PM me for that information. Not only do threads like this instigate unnecessary drama, but they also embarrass users and make it harder for them to come back and unobtrusively reintegrate themselves after their ban is over. 

Nd2 was banned for having 30 (yes, that is the precise number) multi-accounts and for making personal attacks using those multis.

OMG. That is so wonderful :) Congrats, Supa!

Voting period now: https://www.debateart.com/debates/439

Congrats and best of luck, man :)

Unfortunately, I can't agree. The purpose of a trial is to put the user on trial--ergo, to put their actions and character through the ringer. Trials are not permitted, nor will they be permitted in the foreseeable future.

Call out threads are different from insulting posts. Call out threads are threads create simply to insult a specific user or a specific group of users. If you think such threads exist, report them, and they will be evaluated. In some of the cases you may be referencing, public explanations for why those threads were not locked may already be available. In other cases, they may not be considered call out threads. 

Mods have discretion to enforce the rules based on their perceptions of the seriousness of the violations. People simply saying, "I'm glad X was banned" is not sufficient to warrant action. A trial would be.

See the COC.

Ultimately, this is a non-starter and not up for negotiation.

Trials will be deleted and considered call-out threads, resulting in a mod response commensurate with any other call out thread.

Big meanie.

I actually like Midnight. Most of those are just crazy, lol. Who the hell names their kid "Diva Thin Muffin" and isn't guilty of screwing their child over?

+1

nac

Mike gave it to me cause I'm a mod. Look at Castin, too.

Lots of personal attacks coming just after his previous ban for engaging in the same sort of misconduct. He has been banned for one week.

Lol

I knooooooowwwwwwwwww. It's just so much work for me to hit all those buttons with my perfectly manicured hands. Don't you just haaaaaaaaaaaaaate it?

Just say sorry and you're a better person.

I think we all understand how IRL stuff can be overwhelming. I will be looking to add an additional assistant vote moderator in the coming days and weeks in order to alleviate the burden on all of us.

I will also add that making an unsolicited apology like this speaks very well for your character, and, to me, further validates your worthiness to be a mod. Mods aren't perfect--sometimes we fail, sometimes we fall behind, sometimes we make mistakes--but owning those mistakes and trying to be better is something every mod has to do. 

The flag was forwarded to Castin for adjudication. I do not moderate my own posts.

Either that or I thought you were a drag queen while in some kind of rose-induced stupor. Though drag queens aren't what I go for, so probs the mustache.

Just edit it and put it in the description.

I will if you specify in the description that insults should be taken as part of the genre, and not as poor conduct.

Challenge me to a rap battle then.

The no is that saying yes would imply that all the other mods are not competent.

Yes and no, lol.

Lol.

Nope