TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

Appeal to the moderation

Go To

Willbyr Hi (Y2K) Relationship Status: With my statistically significant other
Hi
#2376: Jan 18th 2012 at 3:37:03 AM

[up] Given what happened with that new defense act that Obama said he would veto and then signed, I'm not going to trust that until it happens.

BestOf FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC! from Finland Since: Oct, 2010 Relationship Status: Falling within your bell curve
FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC!
#2377: Jan 18th 2012 at 3:38:42 AM

Is this a good place to ask about the wiki making some kind of official notice about the SOPA, or should I make a separate thread?

I would recommend that you make a new thread for it. I'd also like to point out that there's a (long) thread about this in OTC, though that obviously is not where this site's actions are decided.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
Lock Space Wizard from Germany Since: Sep, 2010
Space Wizard
#2378: Jan 18th 2012 at 4:17:17 AM

A quick question on the OTC mod approval, How do regular user recognize non approved topics? Is there a note or just a lack of add post button?
In place of a post button they have a short notice stating that the topic has not yet been opened for discussion.

Programming and surgery have a lot of things in common: Don't start removing colons until you know what you're doing.
mahel042 State-sponsored username from Stockholm,Sweden Since: Dec, 2009
State-sponsored username
#2379: Jan 18th 2012 at 7:59:29 AM

[up] Ok, Thank you for that.

In the quiet of the night, the Neocount of Merentha mused: How long does evolution take, among the damned?
TParadox Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: The captain of her heart
#2380: Feb 28th 2012 at 9:41:39 PM

Some suggestions to help make the existing moderation tools seem less heavy-handed:

  • Mods should use (and encourage others to use) the language "suspension" rather than "ban" when the intent is explicitly temporary, especially for suspensions used to keep damage from spreading during investigations.

  • It should be explicit when a suspension is intended to be temporary, and when they are for investigative purposes.

  • When one is suspended, there could be a banner or otherwise un-missable message that explains what's going on with one of a few precomposed messages.

Fresh-eyed movie blog
abstractematics Since: May, 2011
#2381: Feb 28th 2012 at 9:53:38 PM

I actually would follow Wikipedia's way and call it "block" instead, when indicating a block on wiki or forum activity for short-term, temporary reasons. Suspension would be a set amount; ban would be an indefinite amount.

I don't know how suspensions are handled right now, but a PM notification indicating "please post _ to discuss the situation with the mods" can be helpful.

Now using Trivialis handle.
Nyarly Das kann doch nicht sein! from Saksa Since: Feb, 2012
Das kann doch nicht sein!
#2382: Feb 28th 2012 at 11:17:03 PM

Again, I'm against pre-emptive bans. It makes the moderation look incompetent, as if they can't handle a situation without throwing around with bans, and only causes distrust in them. Pretty euphemisms like "suspension" doesn't make it better.

Blocks on the wiki, to protect it from "mis-edits" are alright. But a forum is different from a wiki and I don't think it's a good idea to moderate it in an identical way.

People aren't as awful as the internet makes them out to be.
Deboss I see the Awesomeness. from Awesomeville Texas Since: Aug, 2009
I see the Awesomeness.
#2383: Feb 28th 2012 at 11:41:59 PM

What's a "pre-emptive" ban?

Fight smart, not fair.
TParadox Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: The captain of her heart
#2384: Feb 28th 2012 at 11:44:25 PM

Someone is stirring up drama publicly, the mods suspend them from posting while they look into it.

Fresh-eyed movie blog
Deboss I see the Awesomeness. from Awesomeville Texas Since: Aug, 2009
I see the Awesomeness.
#2385: Feb 29th 2012 at 12:01:42 AM

I don't see what's wrong with that. Seeing as bans are the usual tool for dealing with problem makers, I'm not sure what the problem would be.

Fight smart, not fair.
TParadox Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: The captain of her heart
#2386: Feb 29th 2012 at 12:28:25 AM

I think the problem is in the perception that such action is a "ban" and "bans" are a punishment, and only overturned if found to be in appallingly gross error.

Fresh-eyed movie blog
TuefelHundenIV Night Clerk of the Apocalypse from Doomsday Facility Corner Store. Since: Aug, 2009 Relationship Status: I'd need a PowerPoint presentation
Night Clerk of the Apocalypse
#2387: Feb 29th 2012 at 12:38:51 AM

The problem is they are used in a knee jerk shoot first ask later fashion. There have been a couple of instances where a ban should not have been applied. The first time Annebeechee was banned on suspicion of being a goon and recently with haven. Both were handled very poorly. Such incidents leave a lasting bad impression and lead to bitterness and distrust of the staff.

Who watches the watchmen?
Iaculus Pronounced YAK-you-luss from England Since: May, 2010
Pronounced YAK-you-luss
#2388: Feb 29th 2012 at 12:49:02 AM

Yep. Haven complained about how the mods had failed to stop him being harassed over PMs. Fast Eddie claimed there was no evidence of this, and banned him (the evidence soon turned out to exist when the mod who'd made the call over the PM harassment and admitted his wrongdoing).

What's precedent ever done for us?
TParadox Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: The captain of her heart
#2389: Feb 29th 2012 at 12:56:52 AM

And, as was pointed out, Haven swooped in for the first time in over a month to say "well you're wrong about the mods helping about PM harassment. This is what happened to me."

Fresh-eyed movie blog
abstractematics Since: May, 2011
#2390: Feb 29th 2012 at 2:01:03 AM

[up][up]Why is being "wrong" bannable, is what people were saying earlier (here, for a few pages after).

edited 29th Feb '12 2:01:27 AM by abstractematics

Now using Trivialis handle.
BestOf FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC! from Finland Since: Oct, 2010 Relationship Status: Falling within your bell curve
FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC!
#2391: Feb 29th 2012 at 2:05:03 AM

Now that I'm back in this thread, I took another look at that crowner down there. I can't help wondering if I would get anywhere near that number of votes now.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
TuefelHundenIV Night Clerk of the Apocalypse from Doomsday Facility Corner Store. Since: Aug, 2009 Relationship Status: I'd need a PowerPoint presentation
Night Clerk of the Apocalypse
#2392: Feb 29th 2012 at 2:20:16 AM

Paradox: still no excuse to ban him. We call it lurking lots of people do it.

This is a good of example of the right direction to go with the situation

edited 29th Feb '12 2:58:26 AM by TuefelHundenIV

Who watches the watchmen?
SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#2393: Feb 29th 2012 at 5:18:04 AM

Adding a few cents:

@2380, on the single points:

  • As far as I know, I've always understood "suspension" to mean the form of edit-only ban, while "ban" is (likely) a combined forum-and-edit ban for obvious trolls (not yet a site-ban, though). Sure, the terminology is a bit confusing at times. "bans" are usually not meant to be temporary; a troll or vandal isn't likely to reform, after all. That being said, a more cleaner terminology might be useful.
  • All bans/suspensions are "permanent until further notice". They are usually damage control measures and will last until it's clear that the damage will not continue. They are temporary if they're appealed, so to speak. That's why I disagree with @2381. I am not sure what investigative purposes means - there's no way I could imagine a ban being used for investigations.
  • The suspension page is a message that can't be missed, and if you never try to edit after having been edit-suspended, the suspension won't matter anyway.

@2381: The suspension works by redirecting you to this page when you try to access a page ?action=edit. It also has the instructions for how to deal with them.

I don't know how a forum ban works.

@2382: I read earlier in this thread that forum bans aren't supposed to be used like edit suspensions, since you'll likely get warnings before a forum ban in form of thumps etc, while these things aren't used on the wiki as they have a history of not working and are more difficult to repair.

@2386: Do you say that forum bans should officially be called forum suspensions as well?

@2387: I think they are the exception, not the rule

@2388: Yeah, given that admins have the ability of reading other people's PMs, that was a very inconsiderate move. They should have tried out more usable measures there - unless the ban was about something else.

edited 29th Feb '12 5:18:55 AM by SeptimusHeap

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Meeble likes the cheeses. from the ruins of Granseal Since: Aug, 2009
likes the cheeses.
#2394: Feb 29th 2012 at 6:18:03 AM

I think the issue brought up in the Absent People thread is not whether Haven was inaccurate, but the fact that a person made a statement critical of a past moderation incident, and after the claim was made by Eddie that they had no evidence to back up what they were saying, they were banned without the other people participating in the conversation being made aware. If we hadn't heard about Haven's ban from a third party, we quite possibly would never have known.

This is the kind of thing that, whether you have good intentions or not, fosters distrust and furthers the sentiment that the administration will ban people simply for disagreeing with them. While I personally would not make that claim, since I've disagreed with Eddie on a number of occasions and I'm still here, it's easy to see why someone with less personal experience would find it extremely suspicious.

Whether or not what Haven said was true (I personally have no opinion either way, not knowing anything but the vaguest details), this situation served to highlight a long standing problem people have had with the way things are done. While I'm sure there are plenty of situations where secret preemptive bans are warranted, this time around the genie was already out of the bottle, and the ban just made the issue snowball.

edit: And for what it's worth, I still would have voted for you Best Of. tongue

edited 29th Feb '12 6:19:25 AM by Meeble

Visit my contributor page to assist with the "I Like The Cheeses" project!
MrAHR Ahr river from ಠ_ಠ Since: Oct, 2010 Relationship Status: A cockroach, nothing can kill it.
Ahr river
#2395: Feb 29th 2012 at 7:23:50 AM

I would have voted for you twice over.

Read my stories!
BestOf FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC! from Finland Since: Oct, 2010 Relationship Status: Falling within your bell curve
FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC!
#2396: Feb 29th 2012 at 7:53:18 AM

I admit that we sometimes lack tact, but you must appreciate how much there is to do with only about 1 to 3 mods online at any time. I mean, the Hollers thread goes something like 6-9 pages on a busy day and two or three pages on a slow one. (These are estimates, I've no actual statistics on this.)

Sometimes, we may act hastily, but of course, no individual troper sees more than a couple of per cent of all mod decisions, so it's entirely possible that 5 different mods make 10 decisions each during the course of a single day and one troper sees one bad (or not immediately obvious) decision by each of them and concludes that we have 5 bad and lazy mods.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
Meeble likes the cheeses. from the ruins of Granseal Since: Aug, 2009
likes the cheeses.
#2397: Feb 29th 2012 at 8:05:54 AM

I certainly do appreciate how tough moderating a forum of this size must be (I definitely could not handle it), and I am usually one of the first people to side with giving the mod staff the benefit of the doubt.

I think this is primarily a perception issue. That being said, people can only go by the information they have to work with, and in situations like these a lack of visibility really can blow otherwise minor issues out of proportion. I think it's something that needs to be looked at from both sides of the equation if we want to improve.

Visit my contributor page to assist with the "I Like The Cheeses" project!
SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#2398: Feb 29th 2012 at 8:13:44 AM

I think you mean that moderation here suffers from transparency issues?

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Meeble likes the cheeses. from the ruins of Granseal Since: Aug, 2009
likes the cheeses.
#2399: Feb 29th 2012 at 8:30:40 AM

I think the current level of transparency does lead to other issues, yes.

Whether it's something that should be changed, and if so by how much, I can't say for sure. I think it definitely merits some discussion, however.

Visit my contributor page to assist with the "I Like The Cheeses" project!
shimaspawn from Here and Now Since: May, 2010 Relationship Status: In your bunk
#2400: Feb 29th 2012 at 8:47:32 AM

I'm not sure it's so much transparency issues as people only really picking up on the rulings that they disagree with. All the threads in TRS that are hollered locked or crowners hooked, all the thumps that are actually deserved thumps, those are just blurred into the memory as things going how they're supposed to.

It's only the few bad things that people notice. How do we change that?

Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick

Total posts: 3,763
Top