Jump to content
Khallayne

We want Forum Feedback!

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, purpledragonclaw said:

I don't want to impose a minimum amount of time to leave any thread open before closing it, what determines that? Everyone's on a different schedule, why 3 days, why not 7? Why not 2? Threads tend to taper off on their own, that's a system that works, and please remember that the sprite thread was an anomaly. News threads are usually left open for much longer. Lastly, we do filter and delete abusive comments. Sometimes there's so much abuse entire pages have to be deleted. We never just say "another mod can deal with this" or "I'll just close this rather than moderate it". 

 

For the record, I cannot remember WHAT thread it was; it was a year or so ago, but there was one (and may have been others) that was closed within HOURS because after the initial post it was nothing but toxicity. It was reopened briefly and closed again at once. NOTHING would induce me to be a mod.

But there is, therefore, no way a set time to remain open could be implemented, because there is no way to know which threads will degenerate..

 

7 hours ago, purpledragonclaw said:

Okay, @Nine, moderators discussed it and since I left my closing post fairly open-ended and it is an important topic, I'm going to go ahead and re-open the Name Exclusivity thread with the caveat that we can't guarantee it will remain open. We'll give re-opening threads a try rather than create a new topic for it with this one, I hope it works.

 

Good luck, PDC, and thanks.

Share this post


Link to post

Posted (edited)

On 3/16/2021 at 7:52 PM, purpledragonclaw said:

 

Okay, @Nine, moderators discussed it and since I left my closing post fairly open-ended and it is an important topic, I'm going to go ahead and re-open the Name Exclusivity thread with the caveat that we can't guarantee it will remain open. We'll give re-opening threads a try rather than create a new topic for it with this one, I hope it works.

 

Sweet, glad to hear of it! Although if the OP of that thread really didn't want it to reopen, I or someone else could try reposting the topic anew? Whichever works, just want to make sure important suggestions stay alive for prominence. And there's plenty of them sadly (name exclusivity, fog all button, username change, breeding list QOL updates, zombie improvements, etc etc.).

 

On a side note, I do think some sort of a slight revamp of the Name Check thread would be beneficial. Something that includes non explicit examples of things that are both okay and not allowed; examples from the thread could be used as there's plenty of them. Context is the thing that will vary from case to case and it's good to have people double check, but "Dick is okay as a name, Dick is not okay when referencing body parts" could help alleviate both confusion/worry over acceptable language and repeated posts.

 

On 3/16/2021 at 7:52 PM, purpledragonclaw said:

1. We do use posting moderation. 

2. Toxicity is name-calling, rudeness, and personal attacks. We don't treat dryness, cynicism, or sarcasm as a lack of respect. You mostly just saw passive-aggressive posts because we hid the inflammatory posts from view so they can't be commented on further. So yes, most likely you haven't seen them, what you see left in the thread was deemed acceptable to remain there.

 

Wow, I finally figured out how to edit my post with a quote.

 

Is there another possible solution for both allowing thread topics to continue and also preventing further escalation? Admittedly I only saw this feature available on one other website's forum, but is it possible to put a whole topic on "posting moderation", where every post goes through mod accept/deny checks? I don't even know if that's a thing on forums anymore, but I figured I'd ask.

 

While I have my doubts about the effectiveness of pinned warning posts, I think that plus giving an example of what an offending post looks like ("posting 'the old sprites were such hideous blobs and had such indecipherable anatomy they needed an exorcist' is rude, please try to avoid it") might have slightly more noticeable results.

Edited by Nine

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Nine said:

 

Is there another possible solution for both allowing thread topics to continue and also preventing further escalation? Admittedly I only saw this feature available on one other website's forum, but is it possible to put a whole topic on "posting moderation", where every post goes through mod accept/deny checks? I don't even know if that's a thing on forums anymore, but I figured I'd ask.

 

While I have my doubts about the effectiveness of pinned warning posts, I think that plus giving an example of what an offending post looks like ("posting 'the old sprites were such hideous blobs and had such indecipherable anatomy they needed an exorcist' is rude, please try to avoid it") might have slightly more noticeable results.

 

I have so much respect for our mods and can't even imagine being able to do something like that myself. That said, I do think less vague 'warnings' could help when it comes to de-escalating a heated thread. Just using the Sprite Update thread and the Name Exclusivity thread as examples since those are most recent: The most recent 'we're closing this' mod-post in Name Exclusivity only says 'this thread is getting heated again', which is honestly so vague I would have no clue what that means if I wasn't actively involved in these threads.

 

The pinned mod-post in Sprite Updates is a little better but still relies on 'be respectful' and vague descriptors like 'attacking other users' and 'bashing spriters'. What exactly does that mean? As someone who often gets riled up in these threads but also sometimes honestly doesn't know if what I'm saying is crossing a line, a better understanding of where that line is would be very helpful. I saw a lot of negative comments about the sprites but I honestly didn't see anything that I would consider 'bashing spriters' (I may have not seen some hidden posts or something but I was there for a lot of the thread's progression), is that meant to mean only directly calling out spriters in a negative way or can speaking negatively about the sprites themselves be considered 'bashing spriters'? Does 'attacking users' mean directly calling another user names or putting them down, or can it also mean something more general like saying the people you don't agree with are wrong or 'don't get it' or whatever? 

 

While I realize that the actual forum guidelines are probably vague on purpose to encompass a lot of variables, especially when it comes to in-thread warnings a clearer indication of the actual issues would be helpful.

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, HeatherMarie said:

The pinned mod-post in Sprite Updates is a little better but still relies on 'be respectful' and vague descriptors like 'attacking other users' and 'bashing spriters'. What exactly does that mean? As someone who often gets riled up in these threads but also sometimes honestly doesn't know if what I'm saying is crossing a line, a better understanding of where that line is would be very helpful. I saw a lot of negative comments about the sprites but I honestly didn't see anything that I would consider 'bashing spriters' (I may have not seen some hidden posts or something but I was there for a lot of the thread's progression), is that meant to mean only directly calling out spriters in a negative way or can speaking negatively about the sprites themselves be considered 'bashing spriters'? Does 'attacking users' mean directly calling another user names or putting them down, or can it also mean something more general like saying the people you don't agree with are wrong or 'don't get it' or whatever? 

 

While I realize that the actual forum guidelines are probably vague on purpose to encompass a lot of variables, especially when it comes to in-thread warnings a clearer indication of the actual issues would be helpful.

 

I don't believe those things need further explaining. And there's so much to cover, if I become too specific, people claim I didn't say not to do it, and will do it anyway. I shouldn't have to sit down and explain to users exactly what could possibly be negative or hurt someone's feelings, nor am I willing to repeat the poor comments as 'clarification'.

 

I should not really have to elaborate on 'be respectful to others'.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Kaini said:

I don't believe those things need further explaining.

While I tend to agree with this statement in isolation (one of the legit best moderation policies I've ever seen was "if you consistently make people go :(, we will ban you", nothing else; the moderators explained each ban in detail (usually without quoting anything), just explaining how things escalated with the user, whether they ignored the moderators or just had a hard time adjusting after a first warning, etc), I believe that thread derailment into toxicity is something of a process.

 

I assume people who end up being disrespectful don't have disrespect as their goal - they might not even realise they're doing it in the heat of the moment. They're mostly trying to make an argument, which means their post is going to consist primarily of some argument or another, and even two people insulting each other will still be arguments. By just deleting the posts, those arguments are gone. Which is usually fine for the completion of the thread, don't get me wrong, they have almost surely been made before that point in a more respectful manner, but it makes it difficult to understand where and how exactly the conversation went wrong (i.e. "which thoughts lead into the toxicity?"), and I can absolutely understand that people are worried it might just happen again if they can't see the journey the thread took into toxicity.

 

For what it's worth, my recommendation would be to try a model where you might lock a thread that's gotten heated (but not prune it), disallow posting up a duplicate for a week, then after a week has passed post up a loose summary of the legitimate discussion that happened in the thread as a new thread, inviting people to complete the potentially incomplete list of pro and contra arguments, and resuming the discussion in a 'blank slate' environment. That way people concerned can read over the journey the old thread took into toxicity, calibrate themselves and their expectations, but the discussion continues (after heads have cooled off, and the immediate kneejerk desire to get 'the last word' in after all has faded).

 

(That doesn't really work for announcement posts due to the short time frame those are relevant, but I could see it working for Suggestion threads.)

 

Just an idea!

 

Thanks for discussing this with the community, by the way, regardless what comes of it.

Share this post


Link to post

Sorry, pinkgothic, but I'm with Kaini. I was in that thread right to the closing moments, and I don't think I would be helpful to see posts remaining up there reading "You're just being selfish" and "get over yourself and suchlike (I can't actually recall them exactly but I know I reported some.) It IS pretty obvious when one is being offensive. And the opportunity of viewing the toxicity is simply liable to remind people that they have an axe to grind, so that they then get back at whoever upset them later.

 

People who can't believe, or accept, that they are being offensive will end up getting themselves banned in the end anyway. There were a few posts like that "What did I say that was wrong" - well, we may not mini-mod - and fair enough - so we can't point out to them that to call someone names IS being offensive. So we report; things calm down for 10 minutes while the thread is cleaned and then the same people kick off again. Heck, I could name NAMES - but that would be TOTALLY toxic!

Share this post


Link to post

You don't need to worry about 'accidentally' getting caught up or going to far. Private moderation happens to everyone involved in the negativity that warranted mod intervention. If you haven't been contacted, you're fine. We simply don't air dirty laundry when users have action against them.

Share this post


Link to post
19 hours ago, Nine said:

 

Sweet, glad to hear of it! Although if the OP of that thread really didn't want it to reopen, I or someone else could try reposting the topic anew?

 

On a side note, I do think some sort of a slight revamp of the Name Check thread would be beneficial. Something that includes non explicit examples of things that are both okay and not allowed; examples from the thread could be used as there's plenty of them. Context is the thing that will vary from case to case and it's good to have people double check, but "Dick is okay as a name, Dick is not okay when referencing body parts" could help alleviate both confusion/worry over acceptable language and repeated posts.

 

 

Wow, I finally figured out how to edit my post with a quote.

 

Is there another possible solution for both allowing thread topics to continue and also preventing further escalation? Admittedly I only saw this feature available on one other website's forum, but is it possible to put a whole topic on "posting moderation", where every post goes through mod accept/deny checks? I don't even know if that's a thing on forums anymore, but I figured I'd ask.

 

While I have my doubts about the effectiveness of pinned warning posts, I think that plus giving an example of what an offending post looks like ("posting 'the old sprites were such hideous blobs and had such indecipherable anatomy they needed an exorcist' is rude, please try to avoid it") might have slightly more noticeable results.

 

Infinis is one of the moderators who approved re-opening the topic, and since it's their topic, it got the green light. :) 

 

This forum doesn't have the ability to post-mod entire threads, and even if it did, that's a modding nightmare. For fast-moving threads, like News or the Name Exclusivity threads, it would be a constant job. I also don't like the idea of posting offending posts since it singles out users who have been warned already because that creates a new privacy mess; you cannot publicly post warns for a reason. And that example you posted is not far off from what we've had to delete. Do we really need to post that so people know not to do that? I assume you were being hyperbolic, but... that's 80% accurate for some stuff I've seen.

 

I can give a look at the Name Check thread and see if it needs a refresher on the rules. You're right, context is important. I'll try to get to it this weekend.

 

1 hour ago, pinkgothic said:

While I tend to agree with this statement in isolation (one of the legit best moderation policies I've ever seen was "if you consistently make people go :(, we will ban you", nothing else; the moderators explained each ban in detail (usually without quoting anything), just explaining how things escalated with the user, whether they ignored the moderators or just had a hard time adjusting after a first warning, etc), I believe that thread derailment into toxicity is something of a process.

 

I assume people who end up being disrespectful don't have disrespect as their goal - they might not even realise they're doing it in the heat of the moment. They're mostly trying to make an argument, which means their post is going to consist primarily of some argument or another, and even two people insulting each other will still be arguments. By just deleting the posts, those arguments are gone. Which is usually fine for the completion of the thread, don't get me wrong, they have almost surely been made before that point in a more respectful manner, but it makes it difficult to understand where and how exactly the conversation went wrong (i.e. "which thoughts lead into the toxicity?"), and I can absolutely understand that people are worried it might just happen again if they can't see the journey the thread took into toxicity.

 

For what it's worth, my recommendation would be to try a model where you might lock a thread that's gotten heated (but not prune it), disallow posting up a duplicate for a week, then after a week has passed post up a loose summary of the legitimate discussion that happened in the thread as a new thread, inviting people to complete the potentially incomplete list of pro and contra arguments, and resuming the discussion in a 'blank slate' environment. That way people concerned can read over the journey the old thread took into toxicity, calibrate themselves and their expectations, but the discussion continues (after heads have cooled off, and the immediate kneejerk desire to get 'the last word' in after all has faded).

 

(That doesn't really work for announcement posts due to the short time frame those are relevant, but I could see it working for Suggestion threads.)

 

Just an idea!

 

Thanks for discussing this with the community, by the way, regardless what comes of it.

 

You're right on the first paragraph. For your second paragraph, though, sometimes because of life we can't get to modding threads for hours after they've become toxic, and I mean a good 5+ hours. I know that may not seem like a long time, but oh my goodness in mod time for trying to sort out a thread it takes a good hour at times to sort through. I'm talking obvious things like calling people idiots, morons, censor evasion, that sort of thing, and that's on the nice end of what I've seen that I would consider toxic. The stuff that derails is stuff like that, which makes me wonder again, do we need to state that that's toxic? 

 

I completely disagree on leaving a topic locked but not unpruned. I don't want more eyeballs getting on this stuff than necessary. It's poison. I do, however, like the idea of locking topics for 7 days before re-opening or making a new thread. We can include that in the closing post as well, so people know there's a time limit on how long stuff will be down. It won't work for News threads, but it does for Suggestions, and honestly, News threads don't tend to devolve into toxicity all too often, I can only think of two threads, including the most recent Sprite Update thread, where it happens.

 

You're welcome, we want this to be a healthy community where giving constructive feedback is encouraged, and if we can't be open to changing the way we do things as moderators or admit we make mistakes, we become part of the problem. ;) 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Fuzzbucket said:

It IS pretty obvious when one is being offensive. 

 

 

That's just it, for some people it *isn't* obvious. Many people have legitimate issues reading social cues, understanding intent vs wording, figuring out what exactly was offensive to someone. That's a legitimate concern for many people. Now, I wasn't warned for anything in the Sprite Update thread so I'm guessing I didn't cross a line, but honestly it's not at *all* clear to me. That's why I asked for clarification in wording in my last post. I have literally gone to bed anxious that I might get warned for a post, more times than I can count, because I don't *think* I'm being offensive and I'm not directing anything at any specific people but my post might be a bit intense. 

(The fact that people actually *did* post things like 'what did I say that was offensive' shows that I'm not the only one...)

Share this post


Link to post

Posted (edited)

10 hours ago, HeatherMarie said:

That's just it, for some people it *isn't* obvious. Many people have legitimate issues reading social cues, understanding intent vs wording, figuring out what exactly was offensive to someone. That's a legitimate concern for many people. Now, I wasn't warned for anything in the Sprite Update thread so I'm guessing I didn't cross a line, but honestly it's not at *all* clear to me. That's why I asked for clarification in wording in my last post. I have literally gone to bed anxious that I might get warned for a post, more times than I can count, because I don't *think* I'm being offensive and I'm not directing anything at any specific people but my post might be a bit intense. 

(The fact that people actually *did* post things like 'what did I say that was offensive' shows that I'm not the only one...)

 

Calling someone an idiot, calling a sprite fugly, saying a artist needs to learn to draw - I do not actually believe that anyone can't tell that's offensive - but if they really can't, especially even after they have been told, they should not be on a forum. And the ones who come back and say well they don't see why they shouldn't call a sprite fugly if it is fugly (there was a lot of that in the silvers thread) - they have been told and they don't care.

 

Then there are the people whose posts get deleted who come back and announce that whatever it was needed saying so they will say it again. One individual (who no longer posts) knows what they are doing as they even PMd me to say they were doing it and they knew I would agree (I didn't.). A genuine accident gets you a gentle warn - like the day my caps key was stuck and I didn't notice (it has been dodgy for so long that I do miss its screams of rage until I look back later...), so that I appeared to be shouting at someone with a perfectly reasonable question and I started out with NO.... when I hadn't intended to, and it rather changed the tone of my response... Kaini was perfectly charming about it.

 

Warns work for people who genuinely slip up by accident. The people who persist in the toxicity DO know, HeatherMarie. They will have been warned and will come back and do it again. I was in that thread, reporting people, because it was a topic dear to my heart, and I have been called all sorts in it (and I actually didn't report the posts going for me, as I always think that's a bit "all-about-me"ish !) and posts would disappear and the offenders were right back in there as soon as they could be, saying it again. Innocent people who make a mistake get a polite warn. A warn is not the end of the world, you know. If you start to get loads, then you may have a problem.

 

Oh and: 

10 hours ago, HeatherMarie said:

(The fact that people actually *did* post things like 'what did I say that was offensive' shows that I'm not the only one...)

If they got a warn - they were told, so they KNOW. If they didn't - what's the problem; whatever it was wasn't warnable - presumably someone in the thread said they were being offensive, which is not the same as it being an offence under the respectful banner.

 

tl:dr - genuine mistakes do not bring the world down on your head. Saying the same kind of stuff over and over after warnings might. I'm 100% with the way it is now.

 

 

Edited by Fuzzbucket
If someone can tell me how my PC developed predictive text and how to turn it off, please PM me...

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, HeatherMarie said:

 

That's just it, for some people it *isn't* obvious. Many people have legitimate issues reading social cues, understanding intent vs wording, figuring out what exactly was offensive to someone. That's a legitimate concern for many people. Now, I wasn't warned for anything in the Sprite Update thread so I'm guessing I didn't cross a line, but honestly it's not at *all* clear to me. That's why I asked for clarification in wording in my last post. I have literally gone to bed anxious that I might get warned for a post, more times than I can count, because I don't *think* I'm being offensive and I'm not directing anything at any specific people but my post might be a bit intense. 

(The fact that people actually *did* post things like 'what did I say that was offensive' shows that I'm not the only one...)

Going to have to agree with this to an extent; I'm a non native English speaker and struggle a lot with tone and intent through text sometimes, and I know I'm not alone in this.  My native language tends to be very blunt and to the point, and that tends to not really translate well to my English.  Obviously this doesn't extend to every case and some people are just genuinely being nasty, but you can't assume everyone automatically knows where the line is or when/how they might've crossed it.  

 

I will say, from my one experience the warns come with a sufficient enough explanation which is good!  But for some of us that uncertainty tends to always be there a bit.

Share this post


Link to post

Being uncertain - even copping an occasional warn (I AM a native speaker and I have had several in my time) isn't a huge issue. If you are uncertain that shows you are sensitive enough NOT to post toxic stuff.

 

The toxic threads are usually the same people coming back and doing it over and over again after being warned.

Share this post


Link to post

Overall agreed with the above, just wanted to put my two cents out there since I know several other non-English natives in English-only environments tend to feel the same

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, Fuzzbucket said:

 

Calling someone an idiot, calling a sprite fugly, saying a artist needs to learn to draw 

 

Warns work for people who genuinely slip up by accident. The people who persist in the toxicity DO know, HeatherMarie. They will have been warned and will come back and do it again. I was in that thread, reporting people, because it was a topic dear to my heart, and I have been called all sorts in it (and I actually didn't report the posts going for me, as I always think that's a bit "all-about-me"ish !) and posts would disappear and the offenders were right back in there as soon as they could be, saying it again. Innocent people who make a mistake get a polite warn. A warn is not the end of the world, you know. If you start to get loads, then you may have a problem.

 

That first sentence is an excellent example of what I would consider toxicity, and it has appeared in more than one thread about artists' work.

 

People slip up. It happens. I've been warned before, and it was a mistake on my part because I hadn't read the rules before I posted a response. It was deserved. Your second paragraph is also spot-on. Post-moderation is for those repeat offenders who keep repeating the behavior that got them warned in the first place. 

 

I want to address your fourth sentence in your second paragraph and make sure everyone knows it: if someone personally attacks you in a thread, report it. We'll review it and see if it warrants action. There's no reason to accept abuse because you don't want to appear a certain way, or if you feel you're overreacting. That's what we're here for, to decide if it's abuse. Heck, if you feel moderators have been abusive report our posts. Mods can be reported as well. We'll deal with that too.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, purpledragonclaw said:

I want to address your fourth sentence in your second paragraph and make sure everyone knows it: if someone personally attacks you in a thread, report it. We'll review it and see if it warrants action. There's no reason to accept abuse because you don't want to appear a certain way, or if you feel you're overreacting. That's what we're here for, to decide if it's abuse. Heck, if you feel moderators have been abusive report our posts. Mods can be reported as well. We'll deal with that too.

 

Oh no worries. I would report if I was seriously upset. But thanks :) I generally just thank people politely for saying vile stuff at me. It confuses them !

Share this post


Link to post

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.