Toxic

[Tornado]

I don't know about the others, but I wouldn't report when there were several moderators already involved. That's just me though.

Why? Fear of repercussions? All moderators and administrators see all reports. You can't report something and suffer the wrath of the moderator who is already involved. You can't report something and have your report buried by a moderator with an axe to grind before anyone sees it. Even if a moderator attempted to do such a thing, they can't hide evidence of what they did or their reasoning. If Nepenthe banned someone for disagreeing with her and then reporting her, Nepenthe can't go into my email account and hide the email I got saying the report was made; or the email I got saying she banned someone.

[Mauro Fonseca]

More because if mods are involved, then you assume, you know, mods are involved

in a positive sense, I mean

[Badnik Mechanic]

Why? Fear of repercussions? 

 

You asked, so I shall tell you, this probably only applies to me however I know both of these were post in the public forum so I guess it's also true for long term members who read it.

 

Why do I not report something if I see a moderator in the 'reading this topic' list. Because I've been told both to report it, and to not report it.

 

Over the many years I've been on SSMB, both mods and admins (granted these guys are no longer mods or admins), have told me two different things.

 

First time I was told "Do not report something if you see a moderator dealing with it/reading the topic" this was by an admin. 

 

Second time it was "Report any violation, even if a moderator is in there" this was by a moderator.

 

So now I only ever report stuff under the following conditions

 

1: I am one of the first to see something go down.

 

2: I have my suspicions about something and can provide something to back up those suspicions.

 

However if a staff member is reading that topic, I won't report it unless it's a few pages back and it looks like it's been missed, because I've been told not to if a mod is reading the topic.

[Ming Ming Hatsune]

Why? Fear of repercussions? All moderators and administrators see all reports. You can't report something and suffer the wrath of the moderator who is already involved. You can't report something and have your report buried by a moderator with an axe to grind before anyone sees it. Even if a moderator attempted to do such a thing, they can't hide evidence of what they did or their reasoning. If Nepenthe banned someone for disagreeing with her and then reporting her, Nepenthe can't go into my email account and hide the email I got saying the report; or the email I got saying she banned someone.

 

 

No it's not that really. It's because I kinda expected the already active moderators to moderate. They were there. I haven't read the rules for like 3 or so years and I just use my common sense to stay around this community. So all this time I thought what's going on is alright (when it's not) but that's not my job to know that. It's the mod's. Now it could be also true that the active mods have forgotten about that status updates thread, but they should be more responsible. Hence why you guys got the mod badge.

[Carbo]

You asked, so I shall tell you, this probably only applies to me however I know both of these were post in the public forum so I guess it's also true for long term members who read it.

 

Why do I not report something if I see a moderator in the 'reading this topic' list. Because I've been told both to report it, and to not report it.

 

Over the many years I've been on SSMB, both mods and admins (granted these guys are no longer mods or admins), have told me two different things.

 

First time I was told "Do not report something if you see a moderator dealing with it" this was by an admin. 

 

Second time it was "Report any violation, even if a moderator is in there" this was by a moderator.

 

So now I only ever report stuff under the following conditions

 

1: I am one of the first to see something go down.

 

2: I have my suspicions about something and can provide something to back up those suspicions.

 

However if a staff member is reading that topic, I won't report it unless it's a few pages back and it looks like it's been missed, because I've been told not to if a mod is reading the topic.

That's kind of an archaic rule that doesn't really exist anymore. There's no way for any of us to accurately gauge whether or not a mod is in a topic to handle "mod duties" unless it's been made explicitly clear, especially since from my understanding, several of our mods have been increasingly involved and much more active in general discussions.

If it hasn't been made clear and you still reported then that's not really a big loss on our part other than a couple of clicks. So yeah, if it's a personal worry of yours, don't hesitate.

[Wraith]

Yeah I gotta agree with Ming Ming here. I always assume you guys messaged eachother to talk about how to handle things when serious stuff goes down like that. I never see the point of sending a report when 2-3 moderators are already handling the situation. It seems unnecessary

[Brad]

My issue with the whole thing was honestly the way it went down. Personal attacks, condescending attitudes, nasty status updates. Both sides are guilty of it. It's just fuel to a fire I wouldn't expect from moderators or members here, especially since we're tighter knit than most communities this size. 

 

And I'd also have to agree about the report feature. With multiple mods in a topic I wouldn't feel the need to report it. You guys are a team so I expected you'd be talking behind the scenes about it all, even if you were part of the opposing argument.

[Diz]

As it currently stands, feel free to report content you feel warrants staff attention for any reason. If a moderator is already viewing the topic in question, it can be a good idea to report it so that more moderators can see the topic, in case it really does get out of hand. Also, I cannot speak for other moderators, but when I view a topic, I do not tend to go through every post (unless of course I see something wrong), and sometimes I only read a few before hopping over to somewhere else, but a report would pinpoint the point which warrants staff attention, often the starting point of it all.

 

The report system has been enhanced over the years, which can explain why some moderators or admins used to have a different approach to reports. Earlier, one would receive 1x PM for each report being made, and it was easy to be spammed and drowned in these, especially because PMs used to display a summary directly on the forum index. These days, there is an upgraded report center (as illustrated by an image posted earlier in the topic) which neatly combines multiple reports under a single case in most situations. If multiple members report a topic, a member or a specific post, they are combined into one big report where all moderators can gather, monitor and comment on the situation, so reporting something these days is not only reserved for bringing one or two moderators to a topic, but it also creates a small roundtable per report, something which is not at all annoying (but something which actually comes in handy), especially when compared to the previous report system. =)

 

Sadly I was out of town ever since Friday until this evening, so I had not much of a chance to check out the situation that had occured, and for that reason I was not going to comment on it, but I think this should give a better picture on how the upgraded report system works and why it should be used more rather than less.

[Tara]

Why you should report something even if you see mods in the topic:

• New posts could be made while we're handling a different situation.
• We could be viewing an old version of the topic and not see the same problem you're seeing.
• Sometimes we miss something.
• We're not perfect
• We aren't psychic.
• Sometimes your concern about things isn't exactly clear, but that's probably not applicable to this particular instance.

The "users reading this topic" thing only says who is reading it at the time, not when they started viewing it or what page or post specifically they are viewing.  As far as I'm concerned, if there is an issue, do report it.  I can't count how many times I've seen a problem reported that was already handled and all I did was close the report.  Takes less than five seconds to do, so it's really not hurting anyone.

[Mauro Fonseca]

Again though, this wasn't just mods reading the thread, they were actively posting :V as far as we were seeing, mods already WERE in action

[Tara]

• Sometimes we miss something.

[Ryannumber1gamer]

If I'm to be totally honest, I really don't think a separate thread should have been made after yesterday's drama as the only result has been people still talking about yesterday's events, and specifically singling out members, This also goes into all this insults that I've mentioned, let it be both mods and separate members like Autosaver. It's something I just don't agree with and quite honestly, yesterday was one of the few times I felt really uncomfortable being on SSMB, especially with members turning on each other and insulting one another. 

 

When I post about when I first joined, one of the things I always like to say is I felt welcomed in SSMB, but yesterday, the only thing I felt was a bunch of people ready to jump and snap at anything and then take sly shots at one another and I'm sorry, but I don't care if it's a mod, a member, or a guest, that's something I disagree with totally. It doesn't matter when the rules were created or who was mods during that time, I would think that not ganging up and insulting specific members and have just a little bit of general respect would be common sense. I will not mention names and as I've already said, I'm not picking sides. But this is something I've seen on both sides of yesterday's mess and it's something that really made SSMB look a lot less friendly. 

 

This is coming from someone who's been here for almost an entire year so imagine what it would like from the point of view of a guest who randomly looked at the thread or brand new members who's only been here a few weeks.

[Tornado]

More because if mods are involved, then you assume, you know, mods are involved

in a positive sense, I mean

You asked, so I shall tell you, this probably only applies to me however I know both of these were post in the public forum so I guess it's also true for long term members who read it.

 

Why do I not report something if I see a moderator in the 'reading this topic' list. Because I've been told both to report it, and to not report it.

 

Over the many years I've been on SSMB, both mods and admins (granted these guys are no longer mods or admins), have told me two different things.

 

First time I was told "Do not report something if you see a moderator dealing with it/reading the topic" this was by an admin.

 

Second time it was "Report any violation, even if a moderator is in there" this was by a moderator.

 

So now I only ever report stuff under the following conditions

 

1: I am one of the first to see something go down.

 

2: I have my suspicions about something and can provide something to back up those suspicions.

 

However if a staff member is reading that topic, I won't report it unless it's a few pages back and it looks like it's been missed, because I've been told not to if a mod is reading the topic.

Yeah I gotta agree with Ming Ming here. I always assume you guys messaged eachother to talk about how to handle things when serious stuff goes down like that. I never see the point of sending a report when 2-3 moderators are already handling the situation. It seems unnecessary

And I'd also have to agree about the report feature. With multiple mods in a topic I wouldn't feel the need to report it. You guys are a team so I expected you'd be talking behind the scenes about it all, even if you were part of the opposing argument.

Again though, this wasn't just mods reading the thread, they were actively posting :V as far as we were seeing, mods already WERE in action

 

Those are fair concerns to have, and I'm sure we will as a staff discuss them to clear up any confusion on that basis. But the problem is that that isn't really regarding what was going on in the topic. And, indeed, there were multiple moderators in the topic, we were all pretty much actively watching the thread; and we were discussing the topic behind the scenes as it pertained to the drama unfolding. It is perfectly safe to say that, yes, reporting any posts in the topic would have been fairly pointless.

 

 

 

That is incidental to what Autosaver was talking about, though; and what I was replying to:

I get that some were busy but I don’t really understand how multiple moderators were able to write walls of texts but weren’t able to write a quick status update.

Autosaver wanted to know why the moderators who were posting in the topic weren't similarly moderating the status updates. That's singling out specific staff members (in this case, Nepenthe, Ogilvie and myself) and questioning why they did what they were doing. Not the moderation staff in general, and not in a broad concept of moderator actions. And the frank answer to his confusion as it pertains to my actions is that I didn't see any abusive status updates while I was in the thread because I wasn't looking for them, and I wasn't looking for them because no one said anything about them

[Komodin]

Everything else that I wanted to say has already been said, in greater detail. At this point, I just wish that there were better means to moderate the status updates section, because that seems to be where this unpleasant mess tend to spring up the most from. There's the "moderate what you say yourself" solution, but it can only do but so much and, especially when things get very heated, most people are just too incensed at the moment to do that.

[SenEDDtor Missile]

I can't help but be in complete confusion and disbelief about this whole thing, considering the last time I had been involved in the initial statuses regarding Auto's spending, I had been mostly under the assumption that Auto was simply being reckless with his money, and when it was revealed that he had been allowed to use that money, I just kinda dropped it assuming everything would be handled on its own.

 

This turning into one of the biggest wildfires SSMB has ever gone through was the last thing I expected.

[Carbo]

Everything else that I wanted to say has already been said, in greater detail. At this point, I just wish that there were better means to moderate the status updates section, because that seems to be where this unpleasant mess tend to spring up the most from. There's the "moderate what you say yourself" solution, but it can only do but so much and, especially when things get very heated, most people are just too incensed at the moment to do that.

Generally speaking we might find a solution to the Status API once we shift the software. Right now any existing "solution" is presented with a catch 22. Removing the feature would absolve most of the potential baggage but that robs the board of what people generally consider one of it's compelling features in keeping the community knit. We could limit the amount of statuses you're allowed to make but that limits general followups from other users and genuine discussion.

Only solution at this present is having that information readily apparent which usually doesn't stick unless a staffer notices the problematic status or unless a member reports the offender in question with a link at hand. Ultimately that demands a little bit more perception and perspective from both staffers and users.

[Nepenthe]

The game deals thread eventually turned into a discussion about both the ethical and legal behavior concerning someone we all know. Passions are going to arise as a result of the nature of such a topic. The kicker however is that the overwhelming majority of people were actually able to explain their disagreements without resorting to blatantly rule-breaking behavior (which brings up the problem I outlined earlier about the spirit of the law versus its letter, and it's why it took Azoo so long to just finally call it). On top of that, you have a topic that is moving fast. If I'm engaged and typing a wall of text, I'm not going to see how the topic updates in real-time. The first post I made about the endeavor I started after reading Autosaver's post, and it took 15 posts before I was done writing it, none of which I saw considering my post was on the next page. Seeing anyone's name in a thread gives you no actual indication of where they are in a topic or what they've read.

 

And then there is Tornado's point about the statuses: How am I supposed to be in a topic and the status updates at the same time? As of now, I literally have no idea of any specific examples regarding abuse directed at Autosaver in the statuses. There was a mention of off-site behavior being brought here, but aside from the Tabloid- which we did see and two people had to handle because the people involved either weren't listening or didn't see the status updates we made- staff currently don't have a clue about what went on because no one reported it.

 

I admit that in a topic that gets as heated as that one, staff should better be on the lookout for behavior that crosses the line even if it means starting from the beginning of a thread and manually going through if we know it's heated and yet it hasn't been reported. It would also be nice to have more robust tools for both members and mods on the status updates, particularly for reporting them because the whole method of going through someone's profile is clunky, but that type of functionality isn't present unless someone is willing to code it in for us without breaking the forum. Aside from an outright removal of them, there's very little we can do in that regard beyond stressing more self-policing in the status updates.

[Ming Ming Hatsune]

Generally speaking we might find a solution to the Status API once we shift the software. Right now any existing "solution" is presented with a catch 22. Removing the feature would absolve most of the potential baggage but that robs the board of what people generally consider one of it's compelling features in keeping the community knit. We could limit the amount of statuses you're allowed to make but that limits general followups from other users and genuine discussion.

Only solution at this present is having that information readily apparent which usually doesn't stick unless a staffer notices the problematic status or unless a member reports the offender in question with a link at hand. Ultimately that demands a little bit more perception and perspective from both staffers and users.

 

Well I know for a fact that in IP.Board 4 you can report status updates and its comments. The sooner SSMB upgrades, the better I guess.

[Carbo]

Well I know for a fact that in IP.Board 4 you can report status updates and its comments. The sooner SSMB upgrades, the better I guess.

We already had the test board up and running before the server crash actually. Literally broke the current board right before migration, generally left picking up the pieces of what was lost here during that downtime.

Not going to put much stake on the ETA since it still wholly depends on Ian but sometime in Summer feels like a safe estimate. Probably most definitely not before E3.

And unlike this board the Staff section on that test board totally actually had a secret smut topic. I'm not even joking guys

[TCB]

I know this is a serious discussion and I'm sorry if I'm broke the flow as it may but...

Is that your friendly, neighborhood crackhero Tyrone Biggums lol

[Milo]

At the risk of sparking unneeded drama over incidents of years past, I can't help but feel like bringing up old threads as points of topical interest, as they also cover the same ground people are discussing in this thread. I think it's worth a look considering how people have mentioned the atmosphere of the forum is something that's been going on for years-I think reading up on the situations presented in those threads gives one a better background/insight on such complaints and how it concerns the reputation of the forum. It might also simply be just me, but I also think the responses and opinions about the "toxic" environment expressed back then hold a lot of uncanny parallels to those made now.

 

And unlike this board the Staff section on that test board totally actually had a secret smut topic. I'm not even joking guys

 

hahaha oh god I heard so many rumors and references towards it in the statuses but I thought they were all jokes.

[Komodin]

While we're speaking of reports:

 

I'm not sure if anyone else is experiencing this, but recently, I've been having a problem where when I try to report a post, the thing takes an abnormally long time to load the submission before ultimately getting a 504 Gateway Time-out. This leaves me wondering whether or not the report made it through at all.

[Yoko/葉子]

Speaking of reports, can members you are suspicious of immediately find out about your reporting them? If so, I think reports should not be exposed for them to see, as I think I reported someone once and they hounded me on Skype for it.

[Linkabel]

While we're speaking of reports:

 

I'm not sure if anyone else is experiencing this, but recently, I've been having a problem where when I try to report a post, the thing takes an abnormally long time to load the submission before ultimately getting a 504 Gateway Time-out. This leaves me wondering whether or not the report made it through at all.

I get that with posts but they get through.

[Carbo]

While we're speaking of reports:

 

I'm not sure if anyone else is experiencing this, but recently, I've been having a problem where when I try to report a post, the thing takes an abnormally long time to load the submission before ultimately getting a 504 Gateway Time-out. This leaves me wondering whether or not the report made it through at all.

It's a general board issue atm that ties into statuses/posts and even mod actions as well. The reports do come through but it's still an unidentified bug that cropped up which we need to deal with.

Speaking of reports, can members you are suspicious of immediately find out about your reporting them? If so, I think reports should not be exposed for them to see, as I think I reported someone once and they hounded me on Skype for it.

Only staffers can see who reports and who got reported.