although technically it wasn’t a “should we unban this user” is was “should we ban this user” which I guess is slightly different
1 Like
So you had a 25th hunger games scenario.
-
unironcially love the lawyer idea I wanna be a public defender for people who yelled slurs at people during FM
-
I don’t think there should be a stated “Action has/has not been taken.” I have no problem with “this has been seen” or anything like that but stating whether action was taken or not is a bad idea mainly bc ik people would do something like aret said and go “well why not?” especially if they saw the behavior as egregious. I am the type of person who would report something, and then see no action taken and be upset about the fact no action was taken. I would rather just not be told or only be told that something was seen. I wouldn’t like start yelling at people or anything about it but I know I would have a silent anger towards the fact no action was taken, and im sure other people may have worse resposnes and start getting angry with the mods over no action being taken which is worse for the mods. I don’t really think its a necessary thing to add and I don’t think it adds a lot. Going like “your report has been seen” though has like 0 downsides to me (does increase mods work but only slightly imo)
2 Likes
lmao
5 Likes
I can’t sympathise with the favourable rhetoric of someone-announcing-something-you-did-that-was-true “shaming” them. It sort of comes part and parcel with breaking the rules, and it’s a deterrent. Don’t break the rules and people won’t know that you, well, broke the rules? 
I also think that forcing mods to announce what action they took would help with favouritism or whatever other theoretical motive a mod might have to issue an unjust report is a bit silly to me. Why would forcing the mods to reveal their decisions prevent abuse of power?
2 Likes
But honestly I love drama and I love a good witch hunt so if we ever do introduce “transparent moderation” I’ll be the first to celebrate don’t you all worry
5 Likes
I just thought of a new drinking game. As soon as that policy is implemented, whoever within a week gets the most “Moderation action has been taken.” messages upon a successful report on a certain person gains a point, and if you receive a “No moderation action has been taken.” message you have to take a shot.
For the first target I’m pre-designating @Wazza
7 Likes
Uhmm? There is a concept called “Naming and shaming” which litterally is what you just described.
Because you will know if someone is warned for something. If someone is harassing you, or being toxic to you, and it’s painfully obvious. Then you report this to a moderator and receive… nothing? Wait multiple days… nothing.
It appears like the moderators are purposefully protecting the person and letting them harass you, as no information was given. Plus, there is always a fall back on if moderators decision, could make excuses like “at the time I thought it was fine”, as the player can’t know their thought process. Where as if no action was taken, and you can prove that there should have been, then you can contact other moderators for a second opinion. This would be impossible in the current system
Sure.
Sure, that’s normal.
No it doesn’t. That’s you assuming the worst and its not a reasonable belief.
I don’t understand the point you’re trying to make here
I have no idea how not receiving feedback from a report (which is typical) could lead to the conclusion that the moderators must be maliciously turning a blind eye to toxicity. That is so wild.
The argument for implementing such a system hinges on the fact that a) there would be public pressure on moderation and b) that public pressure would influence moderation’s ability to make decisions tainted by favouritism etc.
If moderation had to reveal their decisions publicly, and this did in fact put pressure on them (which is debatable in itself), I’d even argue that this pressure would negatively influence their decisions and reduce their independence, not positively influence them. Mods could feel pressured by everyone else to take action which is disproportionate to the actual rule break if there is sort of resentment in the community toward one particular member that they just “want rid of”
No, I think I’d like to keep our moderation solely independent and not introduce any external pressures on them.
2 Likes
If you have a moderator that has their actions influenced by peer pressure, then they shouldn’t be a moderator.
End of story
The goal of a moderator is to uphold the rules for the betterment of a community, a moderator that is influenced by peer pressure or constant self judgement calls shouldn’t be a moderator.
Currently there is no transparency as to moderator actions. As such, moderators can make constant judgement calls, rather than directly following the rules and can bend rules to their own benefit, which goes against what the purpose of a moderator is.
Furthermore, lack of transparency allows for favoritism.
Have any of these happened? Who knows :)
The purpose of this thread appears to be to have arguments and I know that’s enjoyable for plenty of people and I won’t stop anybody but I would just like to establish it for anybody who hasn’t noticed just in case
3 Likes
Poisoning the well
1 Like
me explaining why my client should be absolved from calling someone 57 slurs in a forum game because it was w/w theatre
11 Likes
Dont make fun of me 
That is the role of a moderator. There is not a definite “oh a player was toxic? They get banned for x amount of time” because every player and situation is different
I used to mod a garrys mod server and it was made explicitly clear to the mods that you can, and should, hane every single case differently. I know multiple mods who wouldve banned people who I let off with warning and vice versa. In a small community like this, the role of a moderator is different but still very similar. The moderators look at the reports that come in, see if they break the rules, and then take appropriate action. They VOLUNTEER their time to do that and do it for the good of the community.
You are falling into a logical fallacy with many “but they COULD claims”. But, the system being proposed by you both doesn’t fix the issue of favoritism and there is no evidence that this issue EXISTS in the first place. Stating whether action was or was not taken does not fix the issue, because if a moderator was knowingly giving favoritsm to a specific user they could just lie, or they could “take action” disproportionately to the actions of the user. There is also no evidence that favortism and rule bending has ever occured from the mods and the idea you are suggesting this as a solution to a non-exisistent problem that could exist doesnt really make sense as its not one that does exist. With the same logic as “things mods COULD do”, we would need to change the entire system the sitr works on, because what if a mod went rogue? What if Arete banned a certain user because they didnt like them? What if Chloe just got really mad one day and banned someone she was upset with in an FM game? We can come up with thousands more “what if” scenarios like the one you proposed and come up with the solutions to them, but there is no point because the moderators represent individuals of the community which are recognized to be reasonable, rational, and responsible. They may make a call you disagree with, interpret a rule differently (though to be fair they literally made the rule), or warn you or ban you even though you think you dont deserve it. That doesn’t mean there is favortism, that doesn’t mean they’re bending a rule, that means they have a different opinion as anyone would when dealing with a specific report because everyone has a different perspective and idea on how to moderate given the “everyone is unique” thing about humans.
The moderators here are excellent and they uphold the rules of community extremely well. I think a good example of this was when Marissa was banned. Marissa is a very beloved member of the community, but she still brokr the rules and recieved multiple warnings for it so the mods banned her. They didn’t play favorites because she was a well known person, they upheld the rules and tool action apropriately. They’re easily able to make correct calls when necessary and they do it all the time in my experience. Fearmongering about the mods being corrupt and also pushing completely unrealistic standards onto them (like being immune to judgement calls which is literally thr job of a mod and peer pressure?) is both entirely unwarranted and does nothing to support your argument of why there should be transparent moderation, since your argument stems from the idea that the moderation is always the same no matter the scenario (this is a terrible way to moderate btw, easy example is if two people break the same rule and one is apologetic and the other is apathetic, you SHOULD be more lenient towards the apologetic person if it is sincere) and that there COULD be favoritsm and rule bending in favor of the mods and their close circle of friends, but changing the transparency of mod actions doesn’t fix that supposed issue, and the issue itself hasn’t been shown to exist in any capcity.
TL:DR your wrong
god i need to play mafia again i love writing wallposts soooo much
3 Likes
Anyway ive had my fun i think the current system is fine like ive said before gonna disappear from this thread now byeee
1 Like
I don’t mean to pile onto you Brakuren because youre already fighting 1v10
I just want to point out that should you be honest in this opinion, I hope that you can accept partial rejection to your proposed changes, because you are arguably attempting to create change via peer pressure, which you just argued mods shouldn’t let affect them
Otherwise if we reword this to instead allow mods to be influenced by “feedback” (more charitable way of saying pressure), then the original point doesn’t stand I’d argue
3 Likes