Goals of Forum and Comment Moderation on MD
- Thread starter Zephyrus
- Start date
- Status
Member
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2018
- Messages
- 43
@Yautja
I misread your statement as simply stating that there shouldn't be one, and missed the acknowledgement that it was one. Especially because the preceding statement claimed "don't reply" to be an arbitrary rule. And going on to say he was banned for a "lack of politeness" rather than breaking that arbitrary rule.
Your post also doesn't address the point I made at the end here: arguing against the moderation action where it took place is effectively derailing the thread (rule 5.2.1). My understood emphasis on this rule isn't "don't argue", it's "in a thread". Take your beef with the mod action to PM (as suggested by two rules, 5.1.2 and 5.5.1), and if you still feel like the mod is abusing their power? Maybe try taking it up with another member of staff, maybe make a thread in....I think the support forum would be the right place for discussing it with other users? Maybe ask other people's opinions on Discord? I'll admit that I don't know what the best approach would be by that point.
Some of this should be evident from Zephyrus's response to kenx in that thread: there was a staff debate about this, so somehow or another, other staff members were brought into discussing this moderator action. And while it should be obvious, they didn't use that thread for the discussion because it wasn't the right place to do so.
Maybe I'm being more forgiving than I should be since I haven't been visibly burned by bad moderation in an online community yet, as you described with reddit mod-dictators. I can't say I've seen them being disingenuous yet (like removing an entire post to censor one or two defamatory remarks, or removing the evidence of mikegnesium's confrontation, for example), so I'm still giving them the benefit of the doubt for this by interpreting rule 5.3.1 as a natural consequence of the other rules I mentioned.
I misread your statement as simply stating that there shouldn't be one, and missed the acknowledgement that it was one. Especially because the preceding statement claimed "don't reply" to be an arbitrary rule. And going on to say he was banned for a "lack of politeness" rather than breaking that arbitrary rule.
Your post also doesn't address the point I made at the end here: arguing against the moderation action where it took place is effectively derailing the thread (rule 5.2.1). My understood emphasis on this rule isn't "don't argue", it's "in a thread". Take your beef with the mod action to PM (as suggested by two rules, 5.1.2 and 5.5.1), and if you still feel like the mod is abusing their power? Maybe try taking it up with another member of staff, maybe make a thread in....I think the support forum would be the right place for discussing it with other users? Maybe ask other people's opinions on Discord? I'll admit that I don't know what the best approach would be by that point.
Some of this should be evident from Zephyrus's response to kenx in that thread: there was a staff debate about this, so somehow or another, other staff members were brought into discussing this moderator action. And while it should be obvious, they didn't use that thread for the discussion because it wasn't the right place to do so.
Maybe I'm being more forgiving than I should be since I haven't been visibly burned by bad moderation in an online community yet, as you described with reddit mod-dictators. I can't say I've seen them being disingenuous yet (like removing an entire post to censor one or two defamatory remarks, or removing the evidence of mikegnesium's confrontation, for example), so I'm still giving them the benefit of the doubt for this by interpreting rule 5.3.1 as a natural consequence of the other rules I mentioned.
Aggregator gang
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2018
- Messages
- 1,823
@Jadian
Well Zeph was a mess of inconsistency in that thread and here so I addressed everything. He claimed to temp ban Mike in the original thread for ignoring his instructions and then subsequently brought up the politeness issue here. I also addressed that bullshit rule just to cover all my bases. And yea it does address it, I disagree with the rule fundamentally and explained why. Specifying that the rule only applies to the thread of origin makes no difference to me or what I said. I don't think that rule should exist, especially considering how it's been and can be used. As with anything, making a private stink about a problem usually has much less of an effect than a public one. Especially when the context to the complaint is right above you and multiple people can respond with their opinions and grievances.
@Kanami-chan
I've always wondered about that, is it just a meme or is KC serious?
Well Zeph was a mess of inconsistency in that thread and here so I addressed everything. He claimed to temp ban Mike in the original thread for ignoring his instructions and then subsequently brought up the politeness issue here. I also addressed that bullshit rule just to cover all my bases. And yea it does address it, I disagree with the rule fundamentally and explained why. Specifying that the rule only applies to the thread of origin makes no difference to me or what I said. I don't think that rule should exist, especially considering how it's been and can be used. As with anything, making a private stink about a problem usually has much less of an effect than a public one. Especially when the context to the complaint is right above you and multiple people can respond with their opinions and grievances.
@Kanami-chan
I've always wondered about that, is it just a meme or is KC serious?
Group Leader
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2018
- Messages
- 1,874
Aggregator gang
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2018
- Messages
- 1,823
@Kanami-chan
Yea I figured, I've just never seen anyone actually confirm or deny it; it's not impossible but is it at all likely? Obviously not.
Yea I figured, I've just never seen anyone actually confirm or deny it; it's not impossible but is it at all likely? Obviously not.
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2018
- Messages
- 14
Just one step closer to Bato.to-hood, but its all fine and good AS LONG as you keep it to the comments. I'm still mad about the banning of Murenase because the snowflakes on Bato.to were bothered by Rapeman's jokes. Seriously, this should be a hub for pretty much all manga, not "Manga that adheres to our political allegiance"
Group Leader
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2018
- Messages
- 2,215
Active member
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2018
- Messages
- 256
@Zephyrus
It should be noted that right now "hate speech" is not mentioned in the rules. If it's intended that it's disallowed I encourage you to add it in as clearly as possible. I think "Racial slurs, sexual slurs, and religious discrimination absolutely won't be tolerated, full stop" is a good start, but if you want anti-LGBT statements included somehow then it should be unambiguous what is impermissible. One example pertinent to our community is trap manga. A lot of people view trap manga itself as anti-transexual but it's a long lasting part of our community, whatever our personal tastes, and discussion should be allowed. It wouldn't be clear whether it is or not with a vague proscription against hate speech. There's similar problems with a lot of hentai, too.
The problem on other sites is that rules are ambiguous and that lets folks who run afoul of the rules feel like it's arbitrary, whether they were wrong or not, breeding a general atmosphere of discontent. Any sense that enforcement is arbitrary will be bad in the long run. I think even if the rules are too heavy-handed it'll still sit better than unclear rules.
It should be noted that right now "hate speech" is not mentioned in the rules. If it's intended that it's disallowed I encourage you to add it in as clearly as possible. I think "Racial slurs, sexual slurs, and religious discrimination absolutely won't be tolerated, full stop" is a good start, but if you want anti-LGBT statements included somehow then it should be unambiguous what is impermissible. One example pertinent to our community is trap manga. A lot of people view trap manga itself as anti-transexual but it's a long lasting part of our community, whatever our personal tastes, and discussion should be allowed. It wouldn't be clear whether it is or not with a vague proscription against hate speech. There's similar problems with a lot of hentai, too.
The problem on other sites is that rules are ambiguous and that lets folks who run afoul of the rules feel like it's arbitrary, whether they were wrong or not, breeding a general atmosphere of discontent. Any sense that enforcement is arbitrary will be bad in the long run. I think even if the rules are too heavy-handed it'll still sit better than unclear rules.
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2018
- Messages
- 1,343
@Yautja
You're apparently misunderstanding my post. I listed reasons why he was temp comment banned, among those that he was being insulting. Would you have found it more acceptable if I had simply stated that he had broken the no arguing about an action rule and left it at that?
I sincerely doubt it since you've already claimed that particular rule is bad as well. Doesn't look like there's any point in engaging on it, so why continue to attack me for inconsistent moderation? I think I was very clear about my thoughts concerning the moderated post, the staff discussion and subsequent clarification of the rules, and why Mike was subject to moderator action.
If Mike has issues with how modding was done, he is perfectly free to take up with me in PM or raise the issue with administration. As a matter of fact, anyone can do so.
@Kanami-chan
Come on dude. That's exactly the opposite of what we're trying to encourage here at MD. If you don't like KC, avoid their works or raise awareness about whatever the issue is, but do it in a civil manner.
Please don't incite rule-breaking, which is stated in 5.3.2.
You're apparently misunderstanding my post. I listed reasons why he was temp comment banned, among those that he was being insulting. Would you have found it more acceptable if I had simply stated that he had broken the no arguing about an action rule and left it at that?
I sincerely doubt it since you've already claimed that particular rule is bad as well. Doesn't look like there's any point in engaging on it, so why continue to attack me for inconsistent moderation? I think I was very clear about my thoughts concerning the moderated post, the staff discussion and subsequent clarification of the rules, and why Mike was subject to moderator action.
If Mike has issues with how modding was done, he is perfectly free to take up with me in PM or raise the issue with administration. As a matter of fact, anyone can do so.
@Kanami-chan
Come on dude. That's exactly the opposite of what we're trying to encourage here at MD. If you don't like KC, avoid their works or raise awareness about whatever the issue is, but do it in a civil manner.
Please don't incite rule-breaking, which is stated in 5.3.2.
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2018
- Messages
- 14
@Synically
Man we really can't separate ourselves from snowflakes. Seen a couple of comments like "All scanlations from /a/ should be banned" type stuff because irony and dark humor is lost on them, absolutely pitiful. This may seem like the gateway to responsible and intelligent discussion, but it will serve as reinforcement towards censorship that will eventually spread to the scanlations themselves. This is not a good path to go down.
Man we really can't separate ourselves from snowflakes. Seen a couple of comments like "All scanlations from /a/ should be banned" type stuff because irony and dark humor is lost on them, absolutely pitiful. This may seem like the gateway to responsible and intelligent discussion, but it will serve as reinforcement towards censorship that will eventually spread to the scanlations themselves. This is not a good path to go down.
Active member
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2018
- Messages
- 256
@Irian
No, it doesn't. Listing off racial slurs isn't a personal attack. Arguing that chattel slavery was a good system isn't a personal attack. Neither should be tolerated.
In the end, I don't care what they include. I just want it to be unambiguous what is allowed so that it doesn't become "us vs. mods" again. Otherwise, we'll implode within a decade, like Batoto did when grumpy got burned out and let the mods loose.
No, it doesn't. Listing off racial slurs isn't a personal attack. Arguing that chattel slavery was a good system isn't a personal attack. Neither should be tolerated.
In the end, I don't care what they include. I just want it to be unambiguous what is allowed so that it doesn't become "us vs. mods" again. Otherwise, we'll implode within a decade, like Batoto did when grumpy got burned out and let the mods loose.
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2018
- Messages
- 1,343
Aggregator gang
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2018
- Messages
- 1,823
@Zephyrus
I don't think I am, but what I do is that think the justifications for him being banned are ridiculous. In the original thread he was not insulting you. As someone else said, being blunt isn't an insult. Accusing someone of lying or abusing their power isn't an insult. You also didn't bring up his demeanor until this thread, you original banned him for breaking 5.3.1 and replying, both of which others and myself have also addressed.
And you're correct, I wouldn't, because I don't think he should have been banned, I don't think he broke any rules and I don't think the rules you cited should even exist in the first place. I see no fault in him asking for clarification or consistency from you, something which you did not provide. He did not contest your warning, IE he did not argue about the action (I'm referencing that bullshit rule I don't think should exist here), but he did ask about your inconsistency in general, your biases, the vague nature of the rules, and incomplete justifications / reasoning. He never argued about your warning, just your inconsistency and lack of explanations. He did not break that ridiculous rule, that rule that I think should be struck from the list immediately.
I'm not attacking you. Not originally, not now, not ever. That response and mentality is exactly why this issue exists. You were inconsistent, arguably, and IMO clearly, did abuse moderator privileges and the vague nature of the rules, showed bias in decision making. Multiple people have explained why these views exist in regards to both Mike and @lly (Arcanine best boi, btw and my favorite 1st Gen). You treating criticism or opposition as an attack or insult is exactly why you banned Mike and people are taking issue. Like I said, I don't expect moderators to be perfect, but these are an incredible host of issues that need to be admitted to and fixed.
I've also just recently addressed why I think making private is less effective. If it was private, these kind of complaints and conversations wouldn't be happening.
I don't think I am, but what I do is that think the justifications for him being banned are ridiculous. In the original thread he was not insulting you. As someone else said, being blunt isn't an insult. Accusing someone of lying or abusing their power isn't an insult. You also didn't bring up his demeanor until this thread, you original banned him for breaking 5.3.1 and replying, both of which others and myself have also addressed.
And you're correct, I wouldn't, because I don't think he should have been banned, I don't think he broke any rules and I don't think the rules you cited should even exist in the first place. I see no fault in him asking for clarification or consistency from you, something which you did not provide. He did not contest your warning, IE he did not argue about the action (I'm referencing that bullshit rule I don't think should exist here), but he did ask about your inconsistency in general, your biases, the vague nature of the rules, and incomplete justifications / reasoning. He never argued about your warning, just your inconsistency and lack of explanations. He did not break that ridiculous rule, that rule that I think should be struck from the list immediately.
I'm not attacking you. Not originally, not now, not ever. That response and mentality is exactly why this issue exists. You were inconsistent, arguably, and IMO clearly, did abuse moderator privileges and the vague nature of the rules, showed bias in decision making. Multiple people have explained why these views exist in regards to both Mike and @lly (Arcanine best boi, btw and my favorite 1st Gen). You treating criticism or opposition as an attack or insult is exactly why you banned Mike and people are taking issue. Like I said, I don't expect moderators to be perfect, but these are an incredible host of issues that need to be admitted to and fixed.
I've also just recently addressed why I think making private is less effective. If it was private, these kind of complaints and conversations wouldn't be happening.
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2018
- Messages
- 1,343
@Yautja
But he clearly broke a rule that has been present for months and I even pointed it to him in my warning. I don't know how you can say he didn't break a rule when it's there in black and white. If he wanted to accuse me of lying and abuse of power--
And let's examine his claims so far. I abused my power by...asking someone not to use a word in a particular context again and then letting the user off with nothing more than a warning? I fail to see how this is an abuse of power. Mike then jumped in, as he has done so in the past, to take me to task for my actions. Perhaps if we hadn't had conversations in the past where he constantly tried to tear me down for moderating, I might have been more amenable to having a conversation with him about it. As it is, his constant insults made me irritated. I wasn't very professional with him. I should have told him it was none of his business and moved on. His behavior caused me to ding him for 5.3.1, which is a rule I have ignored in other instances. Him insulting me and me being irritated by said insults was not the cause of his ban, but it was a contributing factor to me deciding to make a ruling I otherwise would not have since I don't think that lack of communication between staff and the community is a good thing.
--then he should have either brought it up in PM with me or with other administration. Jumping straight to "You did this. Oh, you say you didn't do this? you're lying. You're a bad person. You shouldn't be in power." is NOT the way to have a constructive dialogue. I can't prove it, but I believe he is still holding a grudge from a moderating mistake I made months ago when I missed a report he made on another user and ended up only dinging him for it. I actually need to clarify something- I said earlier in thread that I had apologized to him. That is apparently not the case upon reviewing the PMs between he and I. I explained that I somehow missed his report due to him editing a post and pinging me, which then and now, does not cause a notification to appear for a pinged user of an edited post. I suggested that until a report feature had been implemented, he needs to follow up with either PMs or additional new pings. Ever since then, it appears he's become convinced that I only moderate what I want to and I'm wildly inconsistent.
As for private moderation, I agree in some instances it might be more productive. However, it's just impractical at the moment. The only way I'd be able to keep up with all offenses is if I made a spreadsheet of every person I ever warned/moderated and tracked all the actions I took against them in order to make a private moderation system work. That's too much work for one person.
But he clearly broke a rule that has been present for months and I even pointed it to him in my warning. I don't know how you can say he didn't break a rule when it's there in black and white. If he wanted to accuse me of lying and abuse of power--
And let's examine his claims so far. I abused my power by...asking someone not to use a word in a particular context again and then letting the user off with nothing more than a warning? I fail to see how this is an abuse of power. Mike then jumped in, as he has done so in the past, to take me to task for my actions. Perhaps if we hadn't had conversations in the past where he constantly tried to tear me down for moderating, I might have been more amenable to having a conversation with him about it. As it is, his constant insults made me irritated. I wasn't very professional with him. I should have told him it was none of his business and moved on. His behavior caused me to ding him for 5.3.1, which is a rule I have ignored in other instances. Him insulting me and me being irritated by said insults was not the cause of his ban, but it was a contributing factor to me deciding to make a ruling I otherwise would not have since I don't think that lack of communication between staff and the community is a good thing.
--then he should have either brought it up in PM with me or with other administration. Jumping straight to "You did this. Oh, you say you didn't do this? you're lying. You're a bad person. You shouldn't be in power." is NOT the way to have a constructive dialogue. I can't prove it, but I believe he is still holding a grudge from a moderating mistake I made months ago when I missed a report he made on another user and ended up only dinging him for it. I actually need to clarify something- I said earlier in thread that I had apologized to him. That is apparently not the case upon reviewing the PMs between he and I. I explained that I somehow missed his report due to him editing a post and pinging me, which then and now, does not cause a notification to appear for a pinged user of an edited post. I suggested that until a report feature had been implemented, he needs to follow up with either PMs or additional new pings. Ever since then, it appears he's become convinced that I only moderate what I want to and I'm wildly inconsistent.
As for private moderation, I agree in some instances it might be more productive. However, it's just impractical at the moment. The only way I'd be able to keep up with all offenses is if I made a spreadsheet of every person I ever warned/moderated and tracked all the actions I took against them in order to make a private moderation system work. That's too much work for one person.
Hmm, about 24 hours after I got involved and this is still going strong... Maybe we should all chill and take it as a learning moment? Maybe it's time that this thread gets locked?
Having said that - rule 5.3.1 is pretty bad. Not being able to respectfully disagree and argue with a mod where all users can see leads to... actually let me tell you a story:
I was happily playing Guild Wars 2. Then I started reading forums, saw a whiny thread about dagger/pistol weapon kit thieves and how unbalanced they were (while I was dealing with them just fine). So I made the tongue-in-cheek post "Aww, did it hurt getting d/p-ed by thieves?" And a wild mod suddenly appeared and gave me an infraction point for "sexual comments". Arguing in private with him that he should learn to read jokes amounted to nothing. I decided to make a forum thread to raise some public awareness and immediately got banned for 3 weeks for breaking the "no discussing mod actions in public" rule. I quit the game shortly after, on principle, and never looked back. So yeah, you can see why I hate that whole "can't argue with mods in public" rule thing.
Having said that - rule 5.3.1 is pretty bad. Not being able to respectfully disagree and argue with a mod where all users can see leads to... actually let me tell you a story:
I was happily playing Guild Wars 2. Then I started reading forums, saw a whiny thread about dagger/pistol weapon kit thieves and how unbalanced they were (while I was dealing with them just fine). So I made the tongue-in-cheek post "Aww, did it hurt getting d/p-ed by thieves?" And a wild mod suddenly appeared and gave me an infraction point for "sexual comments". Arguing in private with him that he should learn to read jokes amounted to nothing. I decided to make a forum thread to raise some public awareness and immediately got banned for 3 weeks for breaking the "no discussing mod actions in public" rule. I quit the game shortly after, on principle, and never looked back. So yeah, you can see why I hate that whole "can't argue with mods in public" rule thing.
- Status
