[FEEDBACK] More transparent moderation

[May]

Preemptively. This is current

[May]

I’m not preempting your further arguments by saying “this thread is unproductive” - that would look more like “I bet when Brakuren is unbanned he’s going to make some thread trying to get people on his side”, before you made the thread, which I didn’t say. I’m looking at the thread as it exists now and saying it’s unproductive

[Brakuren]

Oh I never said I was unbiased in this argument.

You are misrepresenting my purpose though, as it is more so that I believe that from my own experiences it would be a net positive.

[May]

A well must be poisoned before somebody draws water from it. My comment was in retrospective

[May]

Again this is pedantry and I’m only having this debate because I find semantics fun. I have no interest whatsoever in engaging with the actual topic of discussion here

[Brakuren]

“This thread is decision for arguments rather then to solve an issue, and only exists because some people like arguing, as such I am establishing this for people who haven’t realized this”

This is well poisoning, as you are attaching a negative trait (Argumentative) to the people discussing the issue in the thread.

[May]

I think it’s more just regular ad hominem, no? “Poisoning the well” is used specifically for scenarios where somebody tries to rebut arguments before they are made using ad hominem attacks. Also I love arguing it’s not negative I’m arguing with you for fun right now it wasn’t supposed to be an insult per se

I just wanted to make it clear that, like, me and Arctic litigating exactly what level of information we individually would like to see from the mods… would have no actual bearing on site policy. We had both set out the points we wanted to make, and the rest was squabbling over minutiae. Unproductive. And it’s easy to start out at a place of “oh, I’m being helpful by giving my point of view on this issue” [true!] and then get caught up in minutiae-squabbles thinking those are similarly helpful [false!]

The actual issue here has been laid out and discussed already. New perspectives are helpful, but past somebody’s, like, fourth reply, it’s just arguing. It’s only arguing. That’s all it is

[ElizaThePsycho (Willow)]

ah hem
here is everywhere where you have proven to me that this thread is self-interested, and designed to improve your odds and give you weapons, rather than genuinely improve the site
a few of these are just “lmao” posts that are only slightly related to this main point but I’ve put them there anyways

1. Timestamp of the thread (within hours of you being unbanned, you immediately complained about moderation practices)

@Brakuren

@Amelia

Like if you had clicked on brakuren’s profile before now you’d see “this user is banned until…”

RAT

@Brakuren

@Chloe

but over here we prioritize making people feel comfortable/welcome and avoiding unnecessary drama.

Uhmm? Are you forgetting who you are talking to? Because I can pretty easily disprove this point.

@Brakuren

@Chloe

it’s built on a lot of trust that we’ll do our job and make sure people are following the rules, but I promise you that we do.

Trust that I have lost due to bad moderation.

“i was banned therefore I hate the mods”

@Brakuren

The game-state doesn’t excuse toxicity. Just because someone is a wolf doesn’t magically mean rules don’t apply to them.

@Brakuren

If someone throws a temper tantrum over having “ no action taken” that says a lot more about them then the system

@Brakuren

Have any of these happened? Who knows :)

@Brakuren

I have information, but I’m purposefully being vague to avoid drama

@Brakuren

@YoubutWorse

The moderators here are excellent and they uphold the rules of community extremely well.

Only some of them

@Brakuren

Because the evidence is circumstantial, and while I have made a conclusion on my own based on it, it is also reasonable to discard the evidence or I can be misinterpreting it.

The evidence would be less circumstantial if it was possible to known what the actual fuck happens with reports, because currently my evidence is just circumstantial and based off assumptions because I have no fucking clue what happens with the reports.

Ultimately, I have the conclusion that it is better to try to push for making moderation more transparent, to prevent either misrepresentation, or the ability of moderators to be biased in their decision making, mostly due to the fact that I have experienced this exact scenario in the past. And by coming forward with information, the situation became worse .

this entire post is just

@Brakuren

God forbid I don’t want to start drama when I could be misrepresenting people.

@Brakuren

I’m so sick of the moral grandstanding of moderators in this thread, acting like they are perfect beings who haven’t ever been biased in decision making or made incorrect judgements.

@Brakuren

Oh I never said I was unbiased in this argument.

---

your complaint may well be valid, but you are not acting in good faith. I am inclined to not trust you because of this

[Arctic]

good wolfcase i’ll sheep
VOTE: Brakuren

[ElizaThePsycho (Willow)]

i was waiting for that

[Brakuren]

@Brakuren

RAT

this is a joke

Rest of your quotes just lack context, that I am avoiding to provide because I don’t want to start drama.

[Chloe]

@Brakuren

@YoubutWorse

The moderators here are excellent and they uphold the rules of community extremely well.

Only some of them

Also, for clarity, nearly all of our decisions are made as a group of at least 2 mods (but usually 3 or 4). We don’t act alone unless the rulebreak is very urgent or there’s no doubt what action we will be taking (ex. discussing flags during a game will always result in a DM from a mod)

Any non-urgent ban is decided as a collective and we don’t make major decisions unless there’s majority support for it. If this is in reference to yours or someone else’s ban, it was not the result of a single moderator acting alone, but rather a group of us.

[Someone]

@Chloe

unless there’s majority support for it.

Wait its not unanimous?

[ElizaThePsycho (Willow)]

implying they’d be able to get wind to vote

[ElizaThePsycho (Willow)]

(/j)

[Chloe]

We usually agree that a user should be banned, but we differ in opinions wrt how long a ban should be sometimes

[Brakuren]

I’m talking about my interactions with specific moderators in private about rulebreaks/etc here, not generally about reports & actions. I’m willing to talk more in private about this, but it doesn’t matter that much

[Magnus]

Does “wrt” mean “with regards to”?
I’ve been saying the latter manually all this time with no idea it was an acronym.

[Brakuren]

Genuinely, I think the best argument against transparent moderation, is if specific “yes and no” cases are outlined, a bad actor could exploit them to purposefully skirt the rules

[YoubutWorse]

@Chloe

Also, for clarity, nearly all of our decisions are made as a group of at least 2 mods (but usually 3 or 4). We don’t act alone unless the rulebreak is very urgent or there’s no doubt what action we will be taking (ex. discussing flags during a game will always result in a DM from a mod)

i was assuming this would be the case (bc like why wouldnt you) but I didn’t actually know for sure so i didn’t include that in my og post