|
Post by Kraetyz on Aug 29, 2016 12:37:54 GMT 1
Hey everyone! I'd like to take a moment as early as possible to set up some quick guidelines on what kind of things you can expect to be okay on here, and what might not be so okay.
RULE 1: Please no illegal content, and no sexually explicit content. This is absurdly simple to follow. Just don't. RULE 2: Other forum members are also humans. Remember this. Be kind, be thoughtful, even when you disagree with someone. RULE 3: Stay on topic. There's nothing wrong with making a new thread if you have other things to discuss.
Easy, right? Don't get banned. <3
|
|
|
Post by enomus on Aug 29, 2016 17:10:26 GMT 1
I'm David Sirlin, and this is my forum moderation. I work here with my iron fist and my tournament favorite, Aphotix. Everything in here has a wrong post and a bannable offense. One thing I've learned after 21 years - you never know WHAT is gonna get deleted
|
|
|
Post by banewlf on Aug 29, 2016 17:27:03 GMT 1
Here's a list of principles that I think are a pretty decent outline for good moderation: 1. Mod powers are strictly for the good of the forum. 2. The forum owner can set a code of conduct, but... 3. Posters have the right to know what the code of conduct is. 4. The code of conduct should punish community members for harming each other. 5. "The code of conduct shouldn’t be capricious and arbitrary. The rules should be based on what is good for the [community]." 6. The code of conduct should evolve based on the needs of the community. 7. Posters have the right not to be punished for things that aren't in the code of conduct. Extreme behavior might result in a change to the code of conduct (see 6) but... 8. When the code of conduct changes to forbid something, it isn't retroactive. Possible exception for deliberate attempts to destroy the community. 9. Players are innocent until proven guilty. 10. Don't moderate opinions, held or expressed, that aren't forbidden by the code of conduct. 11. Favoritism is a bad reason to grant moderator powers. 12. "Players have a right to know why the admins did things the way they did." 13. The code of conduct applies to the moderators and the forum owner too. 14. Don't look at your posters' PMs (or other private data) without permission. Original source: www.raphkoster.com/games/essays/declaring-the-rights-of-players/
|
|
|
Post by Kraetyz on Aug 29, 2016 17:37:26 GMT 1
12. "Players have a right to know why the admins did things the way they did." I agree with everything you listed, but I feel this is important as hell and also deserves a 12.2: Forum users have the right to discuss rulings. This does not equate to 'complaining about locks/deletions/bans', but moderator actions are public and so should discussion about it be. This is the only way to ever avoid moderator corruption.
|
|
|
Post by thehug0naut on Sept 1, 2016 15:32:08 GMT 1
12. "Players have a right to know why the admins did things the way they did." I agree with everything you listed, but I feel this is important as hell and also deserves a 12.2: Forum users have the right to discuss rulings. This does not equate to 'complaining about locks/deletions/bans', but moderator actions are public and so should discussion about it be. This is the only way to ever avoid moderator corruption. Oh god *yes* #freedomgasm I have never agreed with a post so much in my life <3
|
|
|
Post by ntillerman on Sept 2, 2016 0:19:21 GMT 1
I'm pretty sure this forum software doesn't grant moderators the power to look through anyone's private messages anyway. Or at least, I didn't see anything about it in the guide when I skimmed it. IDK if @kraetyz can do it or not, but I can't really conceive of a reason it would ever be necessary- maybe if there was some sort of collusion scandal or something?
Some things I would like to add regarding policy: With an exception for any seriously egregious offense (threats of physical violence, intentionally impersonating another user, any sort of illegal activity) people should be warned at least once before any kind of serious moderation action is taken.
I also think that discussions of moderation (which hopefully we won't have to have, because we're all civilized adults and can post competently) should focus on general moderation policy rather than specific instances. This isn't to say that talking about specific instances of moderation is /bad/, just that it's not maximally productive and can often feel more personal- which is rarely helpful to anyone involved. But if a specific instance of moderation seems totally at odds with stated policy, then post away- since it's obviously impossible to satisfactorily address that issue by only talking about the general policies, which might already be "correct".
I also have a question for the community: What do people think the moderation policy should be regarding ad hominem attacks specifically, as well as other (intentional) logical fallacies generally? Should this be grounds for the deletion of a post?
Pros: -Avoids derailing the discussion -In the case of ad hominems specifically, avoids increasing the "personalness" of the disagreement -Discourages bad behavior
Cons -Some fallacies themselves are subjective -Intent is often subjective -Possibility for abuse
|
|
Bucky
New Member
Posts: 8
|
Post by Bucky on Sept 2, 2016 21:44:21 GMT 1
The list Banewolf posted is actually my condensed version of that source to adapt it to an online community. As far as their adaptation here goes, I suggest that: - We have a separate 'meta' forum for talking about moderator actions. The meta forum could also include things like style guides, proposed changes to the code of conduct, and other conversations like this one.
- Speaking of which, we should make a distinction between the forum code of conduct (where failure to follow can result in penalties) and the style guide (which contains suggestions like 'stay on topic' where violations are limited to having a moderator move or edit your post).
- Any ban should be temporary, appeal-able or both.
|
|
|
Post by Kraetyz on Sept 3, 2016 0:51:30 GMT 1
The list Banewolf posted is actually my condensed version of that source to adapt it to an online community. As far as their adaptation here goes, I suggest that: - We have a separate 'meta' forum for talking about moderator actions. The meta forum could also include things like style guides, proposed changes to the code of conduct, and other conversations like this one.
- Speaking of which, we should make a distinction between the forum code of conduct (where failure to follow can result in penalties) and the style guide (which contains suggestions like 'stay on topic' where violations are limited to having a moderator move or edit your post).
- Any ban should be temporary, appeal-able or both.
That is this forum. Site Feedback to me also includes moderator discussion, because it's feedback about things that are relevant. I don't want people to get banned. I like warnings followed by locked threads/deleted posts. Repeated offenses could lead to aa ban, but definitely only temporary such unless it's, y'know, something unforgivable. I'm imagining signing up and blasting every thread with porn. That's probably not a 24 hour ban.
|
|
Bucky
New Member
Posts: 8
|
Post by Bucky on Sept 3, 2016 19:07:34 GMT 1
That sounds like a good thing to actually codify, that individual admins don't have the authority to permaban, and permabans are reserved for cases where basically everyone agrees it's necessary.
------
Regarding conduct and ad hominems, I think a good place to draw the line is including incorrect or unverified facts in their insults. (resolution: ask them to either provide a source or remove the offending content; failure to do so leads to a moderator deleting the post.) This is in line with a real world legal principle, libel. But we should extend it to obviously hyperbolic claims, like calling someone a "whore".
|
|
|
Post by ntillerman on Sept 3, 2016 20:43:07 GMT 1
Regarding conduct and ad hominems, I think a good place to draw the line is including incorrect or unverified facts in their insults. (resolution: ask them to either provide a source or remove the offending content; failure to do so leads to a moderator deleting the post.) This is in line with a real world legal principle, libel. But we should extend it to obviously hyperbolic claims, like calling someone a "whore". END QUOTE So it's okay to use disparaging information about a user to make a point as long as the disparaging information is true? I'm not sure I buy that. I think relevance needs to either be proven or obvious as well. Like if user A claims X, and user B claims not X and that we shouldn't listen to user A because he's bad at Codex and doesn't know what he's talking about, that's only valid if user A's claim was actually about Codex balance (leaving aside the question of whether or not "User A is bad at Codex" is even true). Basically I feel pretty strongly that ad hominem fallacies should be deleted on sight because these fallacies simultaneously derail the discussion by being wrong (even if, ultimately, the claims they serve are not wrong) and make people feel bad for no valid reason. NOTE: Not all "insults" are ad hominem fallacies. If someone appeals to their own authority in making a claim, it's fine to undermine that authority. I'd even go as far as to contend that all claims about game balance include an implicit appeal to one's own authority, making the claimant's proficiency at the game in question a valid topic of discussion. That said, if when discussing Yomi balance someone says "X, Y and Z therefore P" and you say "But you're bad at Yomi because of reasons A and B and don't know what you are talking about, therefore not P" you're kind of being a shitty unconvincing poster since you haven't actually attacked X, Y or Z, the core of the initial poster's argument. Like this technically isn't an ad hominem I guess (as long as you aren't dishonest in proving that the claimant is "bad at Yomi"), but it's about the lowest quality attack on P that's conceivable without actually being 100% irrelevant. I'm not sure how I feel about other forms of intentionally dishonest reasoning.
|
|
|
Post by enomus on Sept 3, 2016 23:51:13 GMT 1
Regarding conduct and ad hominems, I think a good place to draw the line is including incorrect or unverified facts in their insults. (resolution: ask them to either provide a source or remove the offending content; failure to do so leads to a moderator deleting the post.) This is in line with a real world legal principle, libel. But we should extend it to obviously hyperbolic claims, like calling someone a "whore". END QUOTE So it's okay to use disparaging information about a user to make a point as long as the disparaging information is true? I'm not sure I buy that. I think relevance needs to either be proven or obvious as well. Like if user A claims X, and user B claims not X and that we shouldn't listen to user A because he's bad at Codex and doesn't know what he's talking about, that's only valid if user A's claim was actually about Codex balance (leaving aside the question of whether or not "User A is bad at Codex" is even true). Basically I feel pretty strongly that ad hominem fallacies should be deleted on sight because these fallacies simultaneously derail the discussion by being wrong (even if, ultimately, the claims they serve are not wrong) and make people feel bad for no valid reason. NOTE: Not all "insults" are ad hominem fallacies. If someone appeals to their own authority in making a claim, it's fine to undermine that authority. I'd even go as far as to contend that all claims about game balance include an implicit appeal to one's own authority, making the claimant's proficiency at the game in question a valid topic of discussion. That said, if when discussing Yomi balance someone says "X, Y and Z therefore P" and you say "But you're bad at Yomi because of reasons A and B and don't know what you are talking about, therefore not P" you're kind of being a shitty unconvincing poster since you haven't actually attacked X, Y or Z, the core of the initial poster's argument. Like this technically isn't an ad hominem I guess (as long as you aren't dishonest in proving that the claimant is "bad at Yomi"), but it's about the lowest quality attack on P that's conceivable without actually being 100% irrelevant. I'm not sure how I feel about other forms of intentionally dishonest reasoning. Strictly incorrect quoting
|
|
Bucky
New Member
Posts: 8
|
Post by Bucky on Sept 4, 2016 1:35:39 GMT 1
We do want to allow some things that look like an ad hominem e.g. "I don't think you know the matchup very well since I just beat you convincingly in series on both sides of it."
Similarly, an appeal to authority can be appropriate e.g. "The guy who won the tournament says the matchup is free." although it's not proof.
So I'd be wary about forbidding logical fallacies.
|
|
|
Post by banewlf on Sept 4, 2016 1:50:44 GMT 1
I think you're attempting to over-define the actions moderators can take. No matter how stringently you try to define what is and is not acceptable posting behavior, there are always exceptions in both cases. It's better, for many reasons, to just give a list of broad guidelines and then let moderators have some degree of flexibility in enforcing those guidelines (with appeals, as necessary).
Most of the work is in picking good moderators with a real concern for the community. Once you have that, there's no need (and it's a potential big problem to attempt) to define exactly the style of argument that triggers moderator action. Also, with moderation, less is more. Unless your forum has very, very specific goals, a moderator intervening in any kind of argument should be exceptionally rare.
|
|