Moderation Policy: Proposed Changes

Author: bsh1

Posts

Archived
Read-only
Total: 46
Topic's author
#1
bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
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.


#2
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
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
#3
Castin
Castin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,239
3
2
7
Castin's avatar
Castin
3
2
7

Topic's author
#4
bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
@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.
Topic's author
#5
bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
-->
@Castin
Do you agree with all of the proposed changes?
#6
Castin
Castin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,239
3
2
7
Castin's avatar
Castin
3
2
7
-->
@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?
#7
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@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.
#8
Tyrone
Tyrone's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 103
0
2
5
Tyrone's avatar
Tyrone
0
2
5
-->
@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.

Topic's author
#9
bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
-->
@Tyrone
Lol

(though seriously...just call me bsh).
#10
Castin
Castin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,239
3
2
7
Castin's avatar
Castin
3
2
7
-->
@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.

#11
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
I agree with drafterman on disagreeing with 5 for totally different reasons.
#12
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
I am completely against #6 for the same reason that I differ to drafterman on why I disagree with 5.
#13
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
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.
#14
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
In fact my stance on almost all of these can be explained by my mentality in the above post.
#15
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
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.
#16
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
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.
Topic's author
#17
bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
Bump
#18
Smithereens
Smithereens's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 502
2
2
4
Smithereens's avatar
Smithereens
2
2
4
very nice. 
Topic's author
#19
bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
-->
@Smithereens
Does that mean you agree with all 12 points?
#20
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@bsh1
I believe everyone agrees with #1 just so you know.
#21
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@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.
#22
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@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.
#23
Smithereens
Smithereens's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 502
2
2
4
Smithereens's avatar
Smithereens
2
2
4
-->
@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. 

#24
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@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
Topic's author
#25
bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
Bump
#26
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@drafterman
As I said in the other thread. Right now, vote reporting is rampant, and I suspect that even before your shenanigans, was mostly done by the people the vote was against. If both participant are happy with the vote, then why on earth should moderators waste their time, and people casting votes be dissuaded from voting in the future just because some third party wants to p*** people off?

having the participants being the first line of moderation will make the moderation more lax: and probably not a lot different from where it is now.

more importantly (and more difficultly), I was also suggesting a penalty to be imposed if someone reported a vote on their debate and that vote turned out to be fine. It’s a double edged sword - you want voting to be easy and genuine, so need reporting to remove bad or biased votes - but also you want to limit potential abuse by people tactically reporting.
#27
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@Ramshutu
I agree that the mods shouldn't enforce a stricter voting standard than the debaters request. But this is probably implemented in better ways, such as allowing the instigator to choose a "win/loss" option, or opt out of requiring RFDs.

The problem with putting reporting only in the hands of debaters is the following scenario:
- Enter into a "gentlemen's agreement" with other debater that votes won't be moderator. (e.g. lax standard, no moderation, no rfd required, etc)
- They renege on this and then report all of the bad votes against them
- The mods delete only those votes (remember, mods will only ever moderate reported votes. Even if a bad vote is staring them right in the face, they won't touch it)

If done before the other debater sees what is going on and can respond, then they're SOL.

So it is a "solution" that invites exploitation while other, better solutions exist.
#28
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@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
Agreed. 

Since i don't vote or debate formally, i'm not qualified to answer the other ones. 
#29
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@Outplayz
Wouldn't matter if you did. They would delete the votes. 
#30
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Oh, i didn't know that. Whatever, it doesn't matter anyways. I don't bother myself with that specific area of these debate sites anyways...