Wiki and Forum Policy - General Discussion

I personally follow the EB thread because I deal with a lot of people making unilateral moves on MCU stuff and other pages and it has led to several suspensions of people who indicated that they'd come after me if they could - one of them even full-on admitted that they hated me for reporting them and went so far as to drag others into our dispute. I basically had to follow the thread because I needed to know when they were released and be prepared for any kind of action they might take - and that's how I ended up seeing your case.

I think I'm just...tired guys. I realize these conversations we've been having here and over the last few months are extremely important, but I'd be lying if I said a big part of me wishes we could go back to simpler days where I could just drop in once a week or so and throw out a few votes or an EP. I'm beginning to realize that I never branched out much into the other parts of the site is because it made things feel...complicated. I was neutral about everything regarding Fighteer because I never got that involved, and reading over the last several dozen pages makes me thankful for that. I appreciate the concern for my case, but I'm gonna bow out now and just watch from the sidelines.

I will say, as someone who has followed Edit Banned for years, there have been other cases of the mods banning all of a user's privileges just to try and talk to them in a timely manner (because something like a PM ban can easily go unnoticed). While I do think the response to Lore was a little needlessly rude, I don't think the situation is all that unique. It's not common but it's happened more than once.

So I’ve been doing some thinking on how I operate via PM and have managed to supervise my own standards, I’d be curious as to thoughts from the mod team on if my standards line up with their thinking.

They’re, “would a mod be appropriate to say it in Edit Banned” and “would a user be appropriate to say it about a mod in “Discussions of moderation”. As those are the two forum threads we have for meta-commentary on the posting activity of other users. As a regular user my feeling is just that I should keep such sentiments limited to P Ms when talking about other users as it’s not really appropriate to put regular users on public blast, but only because of the public nature, not the contents of such commentary.

Yeah that is something I have noticed as well. There have been instances of people not even knowing that they were suspended until months later due to them getting suspended in some part of the site they rarely use.

I think the mods need to have some clear guidelines on exactly when and why they look into P Ms. Users expect a level of privacy for these conversations, after all, and I think P Ms should only be investigated if there is evidence of something untoward happening in them.

I also think that users should be allowed to vent their criticism in P Ms. A rule that all criticism of mods should be public seems unreasonable to me, and impossible to enforce in any case (nothing is stopping people from doing so off-site, after all).

I get that there is a great temptation there to monitor everything a user is saying about you, especially when you are having a moderation conflict with them, but that would quickly lead to intrusive overreach. Yes, some of that may be rather uncivil, but it is private speech, and it would be unreasonable to punish people for that, I think. After all, we don't wiretap criminal suspects in the real world to see if they are saying impolite things about the police or the judge, much less punish them for it.

I think P Ms should be treated as private unless there is evidence of rule breaking going on, like making threats or organising smear campaigns.

What's your definition of "evidence" there?

If another user reports a PM where threats are made, or unsolicited P Ms riling up users against a mod, for example.

At this point, I'm just confused.

Is it okay to say things about the moderators in PM's or not? Is it okay if nobody reports it? Is the line grumbling, criticising decisions, or just 'things that wouldn't be allowed about anyone out of PM's' and there's no special privileges for moderators there?

And is the ban example that keeps coming up actually relevant here—i.e., is complaining about the moderators and/or random tropers in PM's going to lead to a total wiki ban—or is this a situation where the response taken was because of other factors (rightly or wrongly) and not the usual response to PM stuff?

Looking at my message screen, I am missing a clear way to holler those messages. I think adding that function would do a lot to encourage some degree of civil behaviour (since there would be a clear option to report the post to mods, and thus signal that P Ms are still subject to forum rules).

I think the ban example is just a signpost for a broader issue with how P Ms are treated.

Edited by Redmess on Dec 23rd 2022 at 1:23:32 PM

Well uh guess something for tv tropes 2.0. ...

I feel like we've had enough good ideas to last us until TV Tropes 20.0 by now...

As for criticizing mods behind their backs... I know it doesn't sound fun, but I do think users should have that right. Consider the alternative: it would be both unfeasible and overly intrusive to monitor users for that sort of speech. Of course there should be a line, but it should be clearly defined, and I think it should be no more intrusive than actual violations of site rules. Simply disagreeing with a mod or thinking they are not good at it should not be grounds for disciplinary action.

Likewise as one of the four PM'd I didn't receive anything inflammatory and I do also hear Willbyr's message with the tone of wanting to make an example. Applying the don't be a dick rule is one thing but it is worrisome to feel we might get a target on our backs for questioning a decision the moderators have made.

So two thoughts, one as pertains to Fighteer specifically, one more general.

As relates to Fighteer specifically, I'm glad they're taking a break from the site, and I hope it does them some good and allows them to come back more...mellow I guess? I also worry that they're focused on the wrong thing/concern.

From my perspective, most people don't have a problem with "Big Bad Fighteer the Mod", though it was noted that they could stand to be a little less snarky/condescending on occasion (Indeed, every mod team needs the "heavy", that person willing to drop the hammer and not take any crap/rules lawyering/what-have-you). What they take issue with is that the "Big Bad Fighteer the Mod persona" bleeds over into the posts of Fighteer the Regular Forum Member way more often than Fighteer thinks it does—it's not "Fighteer is mean to people when he posts with the mod hat," it's "Fighteer is mean to people, period." that people have a problem with.

There's a more general issue here too, and maybe this isn't the place to hash it out, I don't know. Fighteer was the catalyst for it coming up, but I think the issue is still there: How do we make people more comfortable with hollering posts of moderators?

I genuinely don't know how often it comes up, but there was a definite perception that mods in general are "subconsciously protected" by people's reluctance to holler them, whether because of the attitude of the mod themselves, or just internet convention which suggests "Nothing will happen to those with authority; don't even try reporting their misdeeds." (The way hollers work on the backend, where a mod can see who hollered their post, certainly doesn't help the perception, but I don't think it's the cause—the issue would persist even if this weren't the case) For the mods' part, they insist "No, seriously, holler if you see one of us getting out of line; another mod will take action", with an implied "We're not like other websites, really!" in there.

So where do we make that clear, and how clear do we make it? Because right now it seems like it's not, or that if it is made clear somewhere, people don't believe it (Again, internet convention), or think it's just paying lip service to the concept and no real action or consequences will take place.

EDITED to clear up some things/typos, but I don't think the substance of the message changed at all.

Edited by Emptyeye on Dec 23rd 2022 at 7:47:37 AM

I think that cannot be helped to some extent, people are naturally inclined to be more careful about criticizing those who have power over them.

I think what would help, though, is if the mods are seen correcting each other when they are out of line. A very simple way would be to put a clear explanation of the rules and a reminder that mods are not above the rules in thumped posts of mods. I think that when users see that mods really are being kept to the same rules and standards as they are, they will be more likely to holler them as well.

I like that idea, not to humiliate but be transparent when the moderator team feels one has taken an unjust course. I feel it would increase trust seeing the folks with power taking accountability in such a manner and give us a better understanding of their thinking and learning process as they manage the site, the whole none of us are perfect, let's just learn together idea.

I just heard about Fighteer’s absence and I hope he gets a good rest. Mental Health breaks are important and I hope he takes the time to either get the website out of his head or to reassess the situation.

They really are, over in the Discussions about moderation thread I made a long post about my own hiatus last year and how helpful it was for me. I hope it works for Fighteer as well.

EDIT: Oh wait, this is that thread. Now that was incredibly stupid of me.

Edited by themayorofsimpleton on Dec 23rd 2022 at 11:38:06 AM

Without reopening the can of worms... maybe.

I think it's also important that every mod team has a consistent approach to dropping the hammer. It shouldn't vary too much depending on which mod picks up a case.

The perception that one mod hammers harder than the rest isn't a great one for users. It can also be misleading - e.g. it's just that they get handed the hammer jobs because they're more comfortable with them - but if you don't have transparency on that, it can look very different.

When one mod hits harder than the others it also leads to the concern that thumps, bans, and suspensions are handed out unevenly, and that what is against the rules is subject to the whims of which mod witnessed the report. Another reason I'm concerned about the lack of clarity with which naughty P Ms are subject to a suspension - what is the line between rude but still acceptable criticism of the moderators and rule-breaking nastiness?

I hate to go back to Fighteer's behavior again especially since he's already asked to step away and it's a good one, but as lots of us pointed out, how moderators behave helps set the tone for the rest of the forums, and many of us have noted that the things he said were so harsh that we'd think it'd be subject to a suspension but weren't, which suggests that kind of speech is not off-limits in P Ms. Likewise, people have been thumped for very light things (such as arguing with Fighteer where it wasn't prudent).

Likewise I remember seeing people suspended for calling someone racist in public; perhaps unwarranted in the circumstances, but I think users have a right to express to others their concerns about certain posters possibly being bigoted or holding questionable politics for the sake of protecting them, but past suspensions would indicate that this is not allowed either. And if a moderator is behaving in a way that concerns people and causes them to see it as bigoted, they absolutely should have the right to speak about it to each other, even if they are wrong. P Ms that go "I think this forum is an infiltrated CCP psyop and such-and-such users are all wumao shills" suck but should not be actionworthy unless one of the recipient feels that it is.

Edited by AlleyOop on Dec 23rd 2022 at 11:56:36 AM

Likewise I remember seeing people suspended for calling someone racist in public; perhaps unwarranted in the circumstances, but I think users have a right to express to others their concerns about certain posters possibly being bigoted or holding questionable politics for the sake of protecting them, but the former suspensions would indicate that this is not allowed either.

You are not the first person to suggest this, but the reasons why such suggestions (a right to call out, so to speak) have always been shot down still apply:

• Many people do not have the judgment needed to distinguish between actual bigotry, badly-worded statements and legitimate opinion.
• Calling someone out in most cases won't actually stop the miscreant from posting the unwanted stuff.
• Often they (or someone else) take offence and fire back, leading to an escalating spat fight.
• It's not up to random posters to determine what is or is not bigoted enough to violate the rules. That's what moderators are here for.

Incidentally, one thing to consider is that there is no thump function for PMs. Many of the things folks are asking about regarding PMs are statements that if posted publicly would be thumped, but not banned for w/o some other misbehaviour that creates a last-straw-on-the-camel's-back situation.

Uh bad idea. We already get serious issues in OTC of people getting into multiple spats and feuds with each other. Allowing escalating like this when you could just holler or report on Ask The Tropers rather than feed this stupid convo sounds not a great idea.

I once more circle back to my main concern with this incident - as far as I can tell, it wasn't criticizing the mods themselves, it was criticizing a moderator decision due to frustration in a manner that, as far as anyone is indicating, didn't target them personally at all, and he got a complete suspension for it.

Again, I know the circumstances were unique and I can't imagine they were fun for the mods either, but the knowledge that any kind of unique situation could lead to mods full-suspending users just for criticizing one of their decisions in a relatively polite manner in a PM - and the implication that, due to the circumstance, they were willing to apply the ban hammer specifically because said user was a regular of a thread I also regular - frankly makes me worried to even write this out or ever criticize the mods anywhere. Like, I can understand wanting a talk, but I can't be the only person who thinks this sets a horrible precedent, right?

So are we not allowed to say things like "this person is using social justice terminology but the arguments they use keep coming from Comicsgate and all they ever do is call minority-driven works failures and promote White Male Lead works in their place in a couched form of "go woke go broke", and joke about wanting to see minority women get beaten up, I think something might be up, do they have a habit of doing this elsewhere too"?

Things like "this person is definitely a Nazi/pedophile/paid agent" do sound like they violate incivility rules and are prone to misinterpretation and making things worse, I understand that. But "maybe save yourself the trouble of arguing with this person on BLM and getting mad each time, they literally said 'blue lives matter' with zero irony recently" and is able to provide sources seems like it's within bounds. It's just something people should know for smoother conversations.

That's something that needs explicit clarification.

Edited by AlleyOop on Dec 23rd 2022 at 12:28:55 PM

good lord you guys have no idea how frustrating it is that all this went down on the last two days of my suspension

i do hope Fighteer's hiatus gives him some peace of mind and helps him get some perspective about appropriate responses to things (and i know he's not reading this thread, but maybe the mods are passing along our well-wishes in the mod chat). his behavior has been unquestionably poor and needed to be addressed, but he also kept this site running when no one else was around to do so. there was a very long period where basically no one except him was managing EB at all, something that persisted despite his frequent objections to it. it doesn't mitigate the harm, but it shouldn't be forgotten, either.

i don't think i currently have anything to add to the PM discussion, everything i might say has already been said.