[FEEDBACK] More transparent moderation

[katze]

im ngl i just misread the title as “More transgender moderation” and this felt important enough to share

[Someone]

LMAO

[Someone]

Change the name admin abuse

[Brakuren]

Gotta start getting those D&I benefits

[Chloe]

After discussion, we’ve decided to do a trial run of providing slightly more feedback. Our plans are:

• Be consistent about acknowledging every flag and report.

• Allow the reporter to ask us if we took action, but only after the ongoing game has ended, or after 48 hours have passed, if the report was on something outside of a game. (This is because we don’t always take action immediately, depending on how urgent it is).

• If asked, tell the reporter “action was taken” or “action was not taken because [reason].” We will not provide detailed feedback on what specific action we took.

• We will stop giving feedback to users who are rude, who demand excessive personal information about reported individuals, who exert undue pressure on moderators to make specific decisions regarding flags, or who use this information to harass people. We will also take action on people who bully others.

If this turns into a drama-mill or we find that the negatives outweigh the positives, we will stop giving reporters any information other than an acknowledgement.

[Brakuren]

@Chloe

Allow the reporter to ask us if we took action, but only after the ongoing game has ended, or after 48 hours have passed, if the report was on something outside of a game. (This is because we don’t always take action immediately, depending on how urgent it is)

Will the reporter be notified this is an option? My problem with it is people could just not ask because they don’t know they can

[Chloe]

Yep

[Daeron]

@Daeron

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

New rules: you have to take two shots if the reason action was not taken was because it already had been taken, and you automatically win if you turn the new information into a “drama-mill” or get blacklisted from receiving extra information from being rude, demanding excessive personal information about reported individuals, exerting undue pressure on moderators to make specific decisions regarding flags or harassing people. Bonus points if you bully the designated target.

[Chloe]

I do not condone underage drinking

[lilith]

[Brakuren]

Stop promoting illegal activities smh

[orangeandblack5]

this is one of the best posts on this forum

[Brakuren]

So, I think the implementation of the new system is good, however there are still a few flaws in the way the current system is handled.

From what I have seen

1. Public Moderation logs having an inconsistent ban duration/type might lead people do believe that moderators are picking favorites
2. If a moderator makes a comment and you report it, you will never get a response from moderation

[lilith]

@Brakuren

Public Moderation logs having an inconsistent ban duration/type might lead people do believe that moderators are picking favorites

i dont see how this is functionally fixable as different cases will require different punishments. That’s just the nature of moderation

[May]

Seconding this, I think it’d be substantially worse to force moderators to fix punishments to be consistent for any given offence. “Gamethrowing”, for example, could mean anything from self-voting and saying you give up in an emotional moment (which is against the rules, but understandable) to outright listing your entire wolfteam in public to intentionally ruin the game (which is a much more malicious act). “Using slurs” could be somebody accidentally posting a screenshot of a meme with an inappropriate display name in it, or it could be somebody being outright bigoted on purpose to hurt people. It wouldn’t be appropriate to force the moderators to treat these things exactly the same just because they both fall under the same rule umbrella.

Signup bans have to be public so hosts know to enforce them, meaning public moderation logs have to exist, and a decent amount of context is already provided for people to investigate if they’re really concerned (including what game the offences happened in, and whether it’s a repeat offence). Concerns of bias can already be discussed on a case-by-case basis if people are worried. I don’t see what solution could be effective here.

[Brakuren]

@lilith

i dont see how this is functionally fixable as different cases will require different punishments. That’s just the nature of moderation

Could just potentially be my bias as I believe my case was horribly managed. I can see where you are coming from.

[Arete]

@Brakuren

If a moderator makes a comment and you report it, you will never get a response from moderation

fwiw, we try to respond to every report, but we might forget sometimes – if you’re not sure if we saw your report, you’re welcome to check!

[Brakuren]

It’s happened three times so it could just be a case of me misunderstandings yall.

[Brakuren]

@May

I don’t see what solution could be effective here.

Because it just feels wrong for the public to discuss how long someone should be banned. It should be moderators decisions but a lot of agency means that bias can definitely have an impact. I have had experience with moderation before (on other server) and often times when discussing moderation actions, a lot of moderators don’t really care that much, and only a few are leading the discussion. Now, I can’t say for certain whether that’s happening here, but for sure someone who is biased either for or against a person is more likely to participate actively in the discussion about moderation involving said person

[May]

Right, but what solution are you asking for? What changes would you propose to the current system?