We want Forum Feedback!

[KageSora]

But also - there are people here who have copped warns and said "oh I was just having a bad day, no fair, I didn't mean it..." and whine in threads about that. If we try to pull that, why shouldn't a mod ?

I don't think "I was having a bad day" should EVER be considered a valid reason for a user to get out of a warn, much less for a mod to use to excuse misusing their power/being a jerk. It's an explanation, not an excuse that should absolve you of all consequences for your behavior.

 

Users can TRY to use it, but I think they should be called on how BS it is to try and use that to get out of being held accountable for their behavior. On the same token, I think that people trying to use "oh but maybe the mod was having a bad day" need to be called out on how BS it is to try to give a mod free license to abuse their power--no matter how slight--in the name of "having a bad day". And if a mod were to try to use "I was having a bad day" to get out of being held accountable for being a jerk/attacking a specific user/not being fair/etc., then they still deserve to have it pointed out that it's a BS excuse and they're still going to be held accountable for their behavior.

 

As for why a mod shouldn't even TRY to pull that... They, being in authority positions, are held to somewhat higher standards than normal users.

[angelicdragonpuppy]

The forums have always been rather change-hostile, from what I've seen. I don't think anything is much different now than it was last year, especially now that a lot of the hard feelings about the Shimmers are starting to die down.

 

Personally I've found the mods to be better now than they were, although my measurement of how good they are really boils down to 'how many unfair warns do I feel I've gotten lately,' haha. Which has been none, despite me not always being super sweetly polite and making use of sarcasm at times, which used to get me slapped with warns pretty often. Being able to speak normally instead of having to always go 'hmmm is there the slightest way this could come off as offensive to anyone at all?' is nice, and makes me a lot more relaxed and open to using the forums.

Edited March 24, 2013 by angelicdragonpuppy

[Spelunker]

I got warned once for giving somebody a grammar lesson.

I also got warned for posting in some threads from the Introductions forum. I didn't see the rule about bumping threads older than 3 days, so I posted "Welcome to DC!" in some on the first page (that were apparently 3 days old) and got warned. Personally, I think that if you aren't allowed to post in a topic, the topic shouldn't BE there anymore.

[Zovesta]

Personally, I think that if you aren't allowed to post in a topic, the topic shouldn't BE there anymore.

Or lock it. 'v'

[Jmm]

I think the important thing to remember about warns is they're not a punishment. Nobody is expected to live their entire life without being warned about anything, and the same applies here.

 

You're gonna do something at some point which seems like a great idea at the time, but in retrospect, it's easy to see why there'd be a problem with it. I mean, I've done it, It's how we learn. But if nobody tells us what's right or wrong, then we can't learn.

 

Look at it from the mod's perspective. If they don't give you a warn for behaviour which could cause issues, then there's no guarantee you won't just keep doing it. On top of that, it's important to keep a log of when and where you've been warned in the past, so that it's possible to tell the difference between someone making an honest mistake, and someone clearly disregarding previous warnings.

 

Sure, it doesn't look great to have large amounts of warns, but that's the whole point. If people didn't care about how high their warn meter was getting, they'd have no incentive to change for the better. Warns are basically about staff trying to gently guide you to not do things which might irritate other users or make the board difficult to use, but at the end of the day, it's up to you whether you listen to them or not.

[RheaZen]

I think the important thing to remember about warns is they're not a punishment.

Uh, they kinda are, considering only a few of them make you unable to post without moderation/etc. and considering how easy it is to get a warn.

 

why am I even here nothing will ever change lol

[Ayelldee]

Well THERE"S yer problem - you're expecting LOGIC!! oh, sorry. I got warned for whining about my crappy egg-nabbing abilities - did I think it was a WARNABLE offense, obviously not. I'm the good boy! (wink wink this is a joke tee hee and ha ha and all)

 

I've seen a lot more rudeness and unmannerliness here too - it's reflecting the Real World, I'm afraid. Nobody has the time to be polite.

[Zovesta]

Jmm, there's kind of a difference between throwing around warns arbitrarily and actually giving someone a warning that they're starting to break the rules in a way that could negatively affect the discussion. 9_9; I don't think anyone here really has a problem with warns so much as they do how they're being handed out.

[Jmm]

Uh, they kinda are, considering only a few of them make you unable to post without moderation/etc. and considering how easy it is to get a warn.

 

why am I even here nothing will ever change lol

Like anything, if the same problem keeps cropping up, then further action obviously needs to be taken. If you keep telling a child not to do something but they do it anyways, you're gonna have to make them stop it. This is a similar concept. You can only ask so many times before it's unreasonable.

[RheaZen]

The whole comparisons to children thing also gets real old real quick.

[Jmm]

Jmm, there's kind of a difference between throwing around warns arbitrarily and actually giving someone a warning that they're starting to break the rules in a way that could negatively affect the discussion. 9_9; I don't think anyone here really has a problem with warns so much as they do how they're being handed out.

I can't debate the particular detail of any one warn, because that's between the user and mod concerned, but there's going to be different ways people work. One mod might think it's just a case of reminding someone of a board rule or whatever, while another might identify a specific issue worth warning.

 

In some cases, one will be wrong, and that happens. But I think my point was more that if you get warned, it's not the end of the world. Unless it's completely unreasonable, and there are no grounds for it at all, then I can see why you might want it removed.

 

But again, I'm not discussing any one instance, so I can't really say specifically what is and is not reasonable, given that that is a rather large gray area.

[Zovesta]

Like anything, if the same problem keeps cropping up, then further action obviously needs to be taken. If you keep telling a child not to do something but they do it anyways, you're gonna have to make them stop it. This is a similar concept. You can only ask so many times before it's unreasonable.

W'yeah. But where does that line end? Because it seems to change a fair bit. It also seems kind of like putting a kid in a corner because they laughed too loudly or something in some cases. Also a lot of us would be more suited to the police officer/citizen metaphor rather than the parent/child one. >_> I'm not speaking for everyone though, mind.

 

One mod might think it's just a case of reminding someone of a board rule or whatever, while another might identify a specific issue worth warning.

That's the problem right there!! What are we, as users, supposed to do? "Well, it was ok this time but it's not ok now." "Wh but why it's pretty much the exact same situati-" "because i said so" "but" "because i said so GET INTO THE CELL"

 

And in the end we all end up becoming bitter and hardened and run amok screaming "EFF DA POLICE"

Edited March 24, 2013 by Zovesta

[Jmm]

That's the problem right there!! What are we, as users, supposed to do? "Well, it was ok this time but it's not ok now." "Wh but why it's pretty much the exact same situati-" "because i said so" "but" "because i said so GET INTO THE CELL"

Ahh, but see, that's what I'm getting at. You're not being put in a cell when you get a warn, you're just getting pulled over to the side of the road and chatting with the officer. One officer might let it slide, another will pull you over and stop you. same thing. The one who pulled you over will keep a note of that, though probably only mentally, again, that depends on the officer.

 

But if the same officer keeps noticing you speeding or whatever, they don't really have any choice but to fine you or put points on your license. Because you've obviously not listened.

[Zovesta]

A mod PMing you is a cop pulling you over to have a chat. A warn is a demerit, pretty much. =P Also, what's the point of even having them if they're so inconsistent? It's like the cops are just pulling the speed limit off the top of their heads. You know you're not supposed to speed, but what if the speed limit is 40 MPH one day and 70 the next? What are you supposed to do? Keep yourself so boxed in and your posts (screw this cop/citizen metaphor, let's talk about the actual situation we're dealing with) so uniform that posting isn't even fun and that you're constantly worrying about warns?

[angelicdragonpuppy]

Uh, they kinda are, considering only a few of them make you unable to post without moderation/etc. and considering how easy it is to get a warn.

This was my major issue with the distribution of warns, too; back when I was having a lot of troubles with the mod squad, I got two in a single day (on top of an earlier one) for being slightly rude/sarcastic, and then I was stuck having my posts 'moderated' all day. Which made me fall behind in forum games, dragon requests I needed to lead discussion in, and very active suggestion threads that were going on at the time.

 

Maybe if you needed a higher % to have real punishment slapped on you...

[Jmm]

Okay, I think you're probably blowing this out of proportion. I won't say that I've not experienced the random selective tyranny, because if I'm honest, I'm holed up in help too much to say that that's even a valid point.

 

What I will say though, is that if there's someone specific who is genuinely just warning for whatever they feel is against their personal code, then you'd be better taking it up with them. If you still feel they're unreasonable, talk to TJ. Preferably only as a last resort.

 

If, however, there's quite a few different people warning you for stuff, then perhaps it's not as unfair as you might think. Again, I want to stress that I don't know anyone's personal circumstances, because I'm not involved with warnings and what not.

 

And if you're merely talking about a hypothetical situation, than I don't really want to get into that at all. As a form of feedback, hypothetical situations just cause un-needed stress.

 

Maybe if you needed a higher % to have real punishment slapped on you...

 

Now we're getting somewhere, if that was the problem, why don't you suggest that?

Edited March 24, 2013 by Jmm

[Fuzzbucket]

I don't think "I was having a bad day" should EVER be considered a valid reason for a user to get out of a warn, much less for a mod to use to excuse misusing their power/being a jerk. It's an explanation, not an excuse that should absolve you of all consequences for your behavior.

 

Users can TRY to use it, but I think they should be called on how BS it is to try and use that to get out of being held accountable for their behavior. On the same token, I think that people trying to use "oh but maybe the mod was having a bad day" need to be called out on how BS it is to try to give a mod free license to abuse their power--no matter how slight--in the name of "having a bad day". And if a mod were to try to use "I was having a bad day" to get out of being held accountable for being a jerk/attacking a specific user/not being fair/etc., then they still deserve to have it pointed out that it's a BS excuse and they're still going to be held accountable for their behavior.

 

As for why a mod shouldn't even TRY to pull that... They, being in authority positions, are held to somewhat higher standards than normal users.

I agree with you. But I have seen posts with people saying "I was warned and it isn't fair cos I didn't MEAN it !"

 

Yes indeed; mods "have to be" "better" than the rest of us - but they ARE still people. That's an explanation, not excuse.

[Zovesta]

Not really. This is a trend I've noticed, mostly in the News board. Sometimes SD, but I don't really go there much. The problem, to me, is that I've got no real clue on what the guidelines are. What is spam? Is it steering a conversation about ducks to blue, or is it just bringing up duck/goose confusion? Who even knows. I've seen posts that were perfectly harmless and still maintaining the spirit of the thread get removed and warned for being offtopic. When do you stop being offtopic?

 

there needs to be an agreed-upon, firmly set guideline there >_> otherwise mods are gonna over/underreact and users are gonna be hella confused

[Cinnamin Draconna]

Oh, believe me, it can get out of hand. I went from 0 to banned for 72 hours in the course of 6 hrs. The first warn was inconsequential and should have never been given, but then it got taken out of context and the Mods made it worse. It just excalated from there, including the censorship which I loathe with a passion.

 

I took it to TJ and he sorted it out.... AFTER the ban was over, he did make me take the punishment.. but what was so funny about it, is because it started from me criticizing TJ. I am NOT a TJ fangirl, never will be and don't want to be, but there are some Mods who do 'seem to be' and that gets interesting.

 

Will that series of punishments stop me from doing it again? Only to a degree. If I make it to the level of 'moderated posting' again, I'll probably just quit for good, because I hate censorship with a passion, and censoring me just makes me worse and more vocal. Unfortunately, on a forum you can't call your lawyer to keep your voice heard, once you're censored your silent.. and there's not a darn thing you can do about it.

[fainewebbe]

Users need to stop with the "they're people too" apologist crap.

 

I don't think this is as an excuse for a mod's behavior but a reminder that while the rules are black and white, enforcing them is often gray since every person has to make subjective decisions to do so.

 

To compare, I'm a teacher. Part of my job is 'modding' the students in my classroom. While the rules of our school are very clear and objective, I constantly have to make subjective decisions in enforcing them. My job is to be as fair as possible and to ensure the classroom runs efficiently. That means I am always making judgment calls. For example, one rule is that any assignment turned in a day late automatically has '20' points deducted. That's black and white. But what about the student who was up all night because their parents have been fighting or because they were upset over being bullied at school, etc? I have to make a judgment call on that, which is where that black and white starts to become very murky.

 

Reminding users that mods are people too isn't to excuse their behavior; it's to help you understand that the rules of the forum are enforced by mods who constantly have to make judgment calls based on their experiences. Some of those calls might be unfair in your eyes. That's why there is a chain of command here. As for never hearing back from TJ, I don't think I've ever been on a forum where the admin actually directly responds to users. They either rectify the problem if they feel it needs to be or they leave it alone if they feel nothing's wrong. As I stated in an earlier post, this forum has one of the most accessible and approachable set of mods and admin, so that alone tells you that they are willing to listen to the user base.

 

[Wow...that turned out much longer than I expected. ]

 

 

 

[Thuban]

Ok so two quick things I see:

 

Clearer chain of command and consider raising the warn % up a bit for post moderation. Both are reasonable.

 

Right now, your only guidelines are "if you have a problem with something a mod has done, either message them, another section mod for the section in question (in the case of GOs) or TJ."

 

In other forums its usually Section mod, GO, SGO (mini admin) or admin.

[skauble]

Will that series of punishments stop me from doing it again? Only to a degree.

I'll admit that this is the part I always struggle with. If you're in someone else's space and they say "Don't do X", why wouldn't you just not do X?

[Fuzzbucket]

I'll admit that this is the part I always struggle with. If you're in someone else's space and they say "Don't do X", why wouldn't you just not do X?

Me too....

[LadyLyzar]

Me three.

 

A warning is pretty much a heads up to say "Knock it off!" - you're stepping over the line. In most circumstances, only if the behavior continues will posting consequences be applied. If you ignore the warning, well... there isn't much more I can say.

 

It's TJ's forum and he sets the rules. We try to enforce them as best as we can. There are a lot of judgement calls to be made, and the decision made will not always be the most popular or easy one. I really hate modding friends, for example, but I do it because that's what I signed on to do.

 

All things considered, I do consider myself and the rest of the mod team to be fairly reasonable people. Actions, good and bad, have consequences.

[RainDear]

Pulled over (no ticket):

 

Is it possible for there to be "verbal warnings"? That is can mods pm a user about a concern and other mods be aware of it, or is it only possible for other mods to see actual warns handed out? Unless this is possible, in order for there to be this "lower" level warn, a mod would have to edit the content of the post in question so that other mods wouldn't see it and take action in addition to the first mod. Some members are opposed to mods editing their posts, but may accept this alternative to warns for lower level infractions. Would this be acceptable to members, mods, TJ?

 

Alternative, if above isn't acceptable/workable:

 

Are warn percentages flexible? If they are, how flexible are they? Can warn percentages be as low as 1% or 2% for more minor or first/second warns, with subsequent warns having 5%+ levels? If warns of 1% or 2% could be handed out as lesser warnings for first or second offenses or for lesser type offenses, maybe members would be better able to see these as non-punitive measures, and more warns or more grievous offenses would be required to cause the type of post moderation that concerned Cinnamin Draconna.

 

If this were possible, perhaps the levels could be explained so that we would understand that warns of less than 5% are considered lesser offenses and considered to be just to be a "heads up" and warns of 5% or more are considered worse offenses and intended to be punitive.

 

If neither of these is possible or acceptable, is there another way to do the same thing?