Expect this to come back today, I think.



I appreciate the comment. I'm one of the folks on the staff who is firmly in the "keep that behind the curtain" camp. But I'm willing to keep listening to arguments and I'll keep an open mind as best as possible. (we're all human, after all, and we all have our own biases to overcome.)

Right now, I'm running around trying to get about 10 different things done; which means I'm succeeding at getting none of them done. That includes site-stuff and my real jobs. So while I do have more to say on this subject, for now I'm going to step back and let others have their say.

I'm all for no transparency beyond a code of conduct - but that's because I find it relatively easy to stay within the rules.

However, if you ARE going for transparency, then I think PlaneShaper's point is especially valid. Don't fear people gaming the system, because you can always have "gaming the system" to be a punishable offence. If you're going for transparency, then people having a right to know when stuff counts or doesn't is paramount to the process. That's how you get forum members to be involved with the process. Otherwise, if they don't have all the facts, they can't be a part of the process.

OK, I find this idea intriguing, actually. Would folks mind a bit of chatter back and forth on this specific idea for a while?

For those who say the whole thing should be public: Are you OK with a rule like this in the CoC? How might the rule be worded so that it's fair?

For other staff members: What do you think about this as a sort of compromise that looks like it allows the info to be open while removing the games?

For those in the "warnings need to expire" camp: I'm thinking that in order for a mod to be able to notice gaming of the system, history needs to be maintained. If the warning/banning system is open to public view and the warning count on your profile page shows total rather than current, are you OK with that?

While I'm usually going to argue for transparency, is being able to see how many time someone has been warned or banned really useful? What does that really add to the community?

I've been trying to think up reasons that I would want to know someone's count, however, outside of normal curiosity, I'm really not coming up with anything.

If someone writes something that you think violates the CoC (or the spirit of the CoC), are you thinking about checking their "mod count" before reporting? So, if they have not been warned before, maybe you let it slip, which is counter productive. Or, if someone says something that you don't like, but is not against the CoC, but...this person has 5 warnings, well, maybe you report them in hopes of getting them banned. Again, counter productive.

Now, if there were some type of report/graph that showed high level information over time, say, total warnings/bans/reports per month since the forum started, but does not show any of the detail level information, that I can see being a value-add. You can get a high level understanding on how busy the mods are (which could be helpful for people wondering why reporting things takes so long) and how effective they are being, looking at the ratio of total users to warnings/bans.

As for the "gaming the system" discussion, I really don't get it. Yes, we all have bad days, and it's easy to unload on someone online. But someone having the mindset "No warnings for me this month, now I can really rip <name here> a new one, take my warning, and be ready to do it again next month" is pretty foreign to me.

And (to no one in particular) why are you here? Why do you think the mods are here? Seriously...

I'll answer for myself, as, they are pretty easy questions.

I'm here to have fun.
I think the mods are here to ensure everyone is able to have fun.

I mean, it's a forum for games. Fun games. And, unlike the WotC forum, which existed mainly to facilitate having people spend money on their products, this forum really (as far as I know) has no other goal. I mean, there's no shop, there's no way to spend money. There's no ads. There's no membership fee.

So, basically, you have a free product that only exists because the people wanted it to, and there were some people nice enough to make it happen.

If these people want a nice, accepting place, why shouldn't they get it? I mean, the rules are pretty clear in the CoC. Honestly, if you want to troll/bait/flame someone, or anything like that, pop over to the WotC forum and do it there. Honestly, IMO, they kind of deserve it.

Now, I know I don't have the history here. I was only at the WotC forum for around 2 years, and spent most of my time in the DotP area. I get the impression that many people here have known each other for quite a while. I know that can often lead to people not getting along. Wouldn't it be better to just ignore someone you don't like (as suggested by the Mods) rather than take your "once a month freebie" (or whatever) to take a shot at them?

Or, is it that people are just so jaded due to how the ORCs acted, that they can't see the differences with the moderation over here.

A lot of good points Neo, ive got a similar post to make and responses to some of your questions but im at work and it will be a few hours until I can type up a lengthy post.

To clarify, I'm not saying the number of warnings Poster X has should be visable to anybody other than Poster X and the mods. I don't know if PlaneShaper and Yarium feel differently or not, and I don't want to speak for them on that matter.

What I took from Yarium's post is that we tweak the text in the CoC to say, for example, "after your second warning in a one month period, you get a day ban; your third in one month gets you a week; your fourth gets you permabanned." That is, make the warning/banning schedule public knowledge. Then also make a rule so that when the example I typed up in response to Ko happens, mods have some leeway.



I agree. But I've seen it, both at WotC (pre-ORC days, when they actually had rhyme and reason to who got banned and when) and over on GitP which also publicly posts how many warnings it takes to get da boot. I've seen posts like, "If I wasn't one warning away from being tossed, I'd so tell you what I really think!" on more than one ocassion, sadly.

Aha...now that, I agree 100% that it should be transparent. I thought it was more around transparency about mod actions, not around the action/reaction. If there is a rule, or even just a guideline around warning/banning schedules, that should be public knowledge.

edit: I 100% agree didn't look good - cosmetic change

So I see two general ways of "gaming" the system. If there are more, by all means lets add 'em and talk about 'em.

A) the passive-aggressive public decree. "Wow, really? That's a terribad idea. If I weren't one warning away from a ban, I'd tell you how I really feel about it!"

This is the most obvious way to see the game for everybody - mods and community members alike - because it's declared in public. The post amounts to, "I'd flame you, but I know I'd get in trouble for it." And practically speaking, I'm OK with this. I mean, I'd rather somebody not post that. But if this is the price I pay to avoid having a flame post made in its place, I'm more or less OK with it. (Of course, it's entirely possible to still flame or troll in a passive-aggressive decree, but those can - and would - be handled on a case-by-case basis under the appropriate flaming or trolling rules. It is also possible, I think, to build a case that continued, repetetive passive-aggressive decrees (for example, five in 36 hours, all aimed at the same poster) are in themselves trolling.)

B) The Mathematician. This is the example I posted earlier. The Mathematician knows exactly what day and time his oldest warning expires, and so quietly bites his tongue until that time passes, then lets loose once the urge arises. The Mathematician uses information such as upcoming weekend trips or longer vacations to map out time periods he doesn't care about losing to a smaller ban and uses those to his advantage, for example by earning a day ban just before going away on a weekend trip.

The Mathematician never publicly states his goal of playing the Warning Game, so his activity requires pattern-watching from the staff if it's ever going to be recognized.

In my personal world view, the Mathematician is the worst of the two game players, because you have to essentially be a forensics detective to catch him at the act. And even once you have the pattern, he always has the excuse, "You're seeing patterns where there aren't any." He's worse because he's using the system to his advantage - flaming right before vacation, when he doens't care about the ban, etc. So while Mr. Passive-Aggressive is both easy to spot and easy to control if he gets out of hand, the Mathematician is harder to notice and the general rules are harder to apply directly.

*

Is there another "style" of game player? Is there some way to neatly handle B? (Or alternatively, can somebody convince me The Mathematician isn't a problem as he plays his game with the warnings?)

I'm fine with both of those. The first one is like "great, the system is working". The second one, if they're that determined on flaming within the rules, well you'll never develop a system that fully escapes them. This system would still severely limit them though, and that's good enough.

Just leave yourself the caveat of having ultimate authority to be used at your own discretion. If someone's bad enough just a few times, and they really warrant it, the transparent rules can be circumnavigated.

So do me a favor. Can you go into the draft CoC and find me a rule or two that we would use to stop The Mathematician, once his pattern becomes obvious? Or is that what you mean by the second paragraph? That we need to have a, "Despite all these rules, we still reserve the right to ban you if we believe you're a complete douchenozzle" clause somewhere in there?

I think that should be a rule anywhere...

i think you can boil the whole set of rules down to:
1. dont be a dick
2. dont break the law

I agree that if warnings expire, it should be public knowledge in the CoC. It's just that, as Althalus mentioned, the period that is planned is longer than the site currently exists. So as of RIGHT NOW, it is a non-issue. I personally like a 6 month period, but that's for the staff to decide.

Also, if you make these periods longer, the Mathematician becomes a lot less of an issue. It is very annoying to see a systematic in a month time, or 2 month time. But if it's twice a year, I don't think the issue is big enough to warrant defense against.

The snap-ban comment should of course be in there somewhere. It's not something that should be needed in our current situation, but as this forum will live on for years, it is inevitable that some people may get grudges or something and create dual accounts for the sole purpose of messing things up big-time. The snap-ban line in the CoC will deal with all of that stuff and, if you want to be really precise, even the spambots.

Pretty much. I think I left a reply in the CoC discussion that kinda hints at that. At the end of the day, you're the "owners" of this site, and like any owner you are free to deny service to whomever you wish, for whatever reason you ultimately wish.

While I fundamentally believe that all information should be in the public record, what I was arguing for was just to ensure that warnings not be eradicated from a specific user's record. However, even though the warnings wouldn't disappear, still having old warnings "not count" for the purposes of present moderation.

In that case, the user should know the number of warnings against him or her that still "count," rather than just the total number of warnings ever levied. So what if a user tries to "game the system" by looking at their current number of "countable" warnings, realizes that they "can" break the rules and just get a warning?

Not everything has to be escalate-able. Laws aren't there to prohibit behavior, they are there to provide restitution to the community when the behavior inevitably occurs. Rule-breaking behavior doesn't end because you prosecute the rule-breakers. It simply doesn't end. You determine what the appropriate restitution is and apply it consistently. I do not hold in high regard the theory that punishment can function as an effective deterrent for humans as a whole.

I get that authority wants to be prosecuting fewer infractions, and in order to achieve that goal they will do things like increase punishment, create faster escalations, and make more rules. But it is the authority's job to prosecute infractions, not to reduce the number of infractions that occur. It is the society's job to decide on which methods should be used to limit infractions. On this forum there is not an effective or transparent separation between legislative and executive powers (nor judiciary, for that matter).

And no, "gaming the system" should *NOT* be a violable offense, in my opinion. That allows the authority to make one-sided decisions about what constitutes "gaming the system" with no recourse for the public to hold that authority to the same standard.

Do I care if one particular user gets day-banned once a month for bypassing the filter, with that user having the knowledge that their ban keeps dropping off of their "countable offenses" list? No. That is, in fact, the point. Perhaps that user is practicing civil disobedience in their own fashion, a practice which I believe should be embraced, not punished to excess.

----------------------------------

While I would also be a strong advocate for publicizing the methods by which you take moderator actions (e.g. warnings last for 1 month, day-bans for 1 year, etc, etc), I was actually only arguing for each user being able to see both the total actions they have received and the total number of actions they've received that still count towards escalation.

Well,if you recall one of the forums that were praised for it's moderation has in it's rules and i'm quoting here "If we don't like you, we simply ban you."

I just use
"In case of extreme infractions, the staff reserves the right to immediately ban your account. If that happens and you wish to make a case, please contact <admin> at <email> using the mail you registered the account with"

Since it's mostly either spambots or people that use doubles, the odds of actually receiving e-mails are pretty much 0%.

I'm a very firm believer in honoring member privacy. That means I don't disclose your IP address or email address (if it's hidden), but that also means that I'm not going to disclose what happens between you and I regarding your discipline. If you wish to disclose that information, of course, by all means you can do so.

So we agree on a lot of what you've said in this paragraph, just not the "all information" part.



(I'm simplifying your quote, which maybe isn't fair. You said a lot of great things here that I've removed.)

Maybe this makes an interesting OTR discussion and I have to split it off. But I disagree. Sure, some things - most things - are as you describe. Some laws are very much designed to curtail - though probably not completely eliminate - behavior. Motorcycle riders being required to wear a helmet, the municipal park being off-limits to skateboard riders, and so forth. Those sorts of laws are very much meant to severely curtail specific behaviors, because doing so is (theoretically) in society's best interests. Society pays a high cost in increased insurance and medical bills, for example, from accidents involving helmetless riders (or so the story went). The municipality that bans skateboards in the park either sees them as a nuisance to others, is looking to curtail the costs associated with damage, or both.



Yep. My ideal job here is that I ban spambots, sticky / unsticky threads, and other simple and boring tasks. Ideal won't happen, of course.



Is there a popular forum that does have such separation? We took our best shot at it by having moderators who report to leads, and then leads who report to the site admin. So at least there is a functional - and documented - appeal process. While I'm not at all saying we'll change how we are set up, I would be curious to see what other options would've been worth considering.



This is possible, but requires coding changes to add a new field to the user's page. It's based around, essentially, a software limitation.

The software tracks warnings for us, both by maintaining the user's count as part of their account (bad design, actually), we well as an actual screen we can go look at that not only shows us the count but the text that was sent, who sent it, what time, etc. That screen is a pretty nice summary page for us, actually.

The software also allows us to set warnings to expire. When a warning expires, two things happen. First, the count that appears in the user table is decreased by one. Second, all the records that we can see on that summary page are wiped out. Bang, all gone.

And so that is the reason we went with "no technical expiration but we'll disregard after X amount of time."

To fix this (well, to hack this fix in - actual fixing would require a re-design) we'd need to alter the user page and add two fields. One would be a static text field that said, "Active Warnings" or some such. Easy part. The second field would display the results of a database query which essentially fetched the number of warnings in that summary page created in the last X days. Not hard, but not quite as easy as the plain text field. we can certainly look at it, though.

Yes, they do, imo.

I said this before, but it is highly dependent on the time period Althalus hinted at earlier. We can safely assume by his reply that the bar is set at more than 3 months.
In the case of 'gaming the system', it is only a issue if it occurs repeatedly. But the longer the warnings stay, the less disruptive gaming becomes. If it takes a year before one can even assume someone is gaming, and another year before it can be researched, I think it shows itself that the issue is so small that it really does not need extra attention.

At the other side, the one thing we set out to do when this was made was to at least be more open about stuff like moderation. So if warnings disappear after some time (I again propose at least 6 months), it should be known to the users. It prevents a lot of discussions about the expiration date of warnings.

I'd probably disagree with this one. Instead, you already have the option of doing 'minor' infractions of with a PM to the user or something, warnings for a bit more serious and snap-bans for the really serious stuff.