Moderation Feedback

[Tara]

42 minutes ago, SurrealBrain said:

I too feel the need to say some stuff of my own. I'll be blunt with this, so...

I've seen mods ignore what seemed like problems that need dealing with. Now, sometimes, I don't report because I can't tell if I'd just be doing it out of emotions, but in some instances, there's a situation, and it gets left alone for some reason.

I second Ryan on the whole "pointless thread" thing. Why is it that we members can't get away with it yet a mod can and get a like? I think mods should be punished for breaking the rules, too; perhaps more than the members, since they're supposed to enforce the rules in the first place.

Actually, I wonder if some mods are even taking their positions seriously. And at least some of them don't seem to do much in general, much less moderate, to where if not for the orange stickers, you wouldn't even realize they were mods to begin with.

Some have also just...vanished. Like, where are they? If they don't wanna moderate, they shoukd give up the title, I say.

I do apologize if I come across as rude, and I'm sure I'll think up more, but that's what's on the top of my head. To end this on a positive note, however, there are mods that do their best for the community, and I salute them for it.

I'm going to address a few things here-

1) It's hard to tell you why without any real examples.  Not everything WILL be handled by a mod for a number of reasons, one of which because it might not be worth anyone's time.  One such example is the other day when we got several reports asking why this wasn't taken care of.  But not only was the report done quite awhile after the infraction was relevant, but the actual problem was comparatively benign.  At that point, digging up the issue to do something about it would have caused more trouble than stopped.

2) Please do not judge a mod's position on the boards unless you actually know why they're on the team in the first place.  You're right; some mods don't look like they do much, but that's because they contribute in other ways.

[Nepenthe]

In regards to the first point Tara made, I will elaborate and say that if there's a lot of undesirable behavior going on that's spread across multiple people, we tend to do a general call-out of the behavior itself versus any individuals and declare that people get back on topic. It's more efficient that way then to sit down and hash out every single problem with each person at that point, which is another reason why that one report went unchecked: She had already moderated the situation and told people to get back on topic. Across two posts, I might add.

Another thing is we don't simply take a report as a binding call to action. A lot of reports we get and process without action are of people who are simply upset that someone was blunt in their wording or a bit snippy or passionate, which isn't against the rules. We already get called too PC and SJW for some people's tastes so I can't imagine warning people because they said something like "oh come the fuck on, you can't be serious." It's okay to be angry and frustrated.

Zaysho also has a point about spam threads. We don't get on people- normal members or staff- for making a spam thread if it can be assumed that they were acting in the service of lightening the mood, by looking at things such as the member's general post history, their personality, and the content of the thread itself. Indeed, we tend to let them run their course (both because they amuse us too and because we'll be criticized as not allowing people to have fun if we do our jobs).

When people start getting their spam threads locked and striked for it is if they already have a habit of being problematic members anyway, whereupon it can be assumed that their intentions aren't in good faith to lighten the mood so much as it is to muck up the forums for whatever reason. Making crappy threads in quick succession, being on the staff shitlist for spamming in other ways already, or posting content that is racist, homophobic/transphobic, sexist, or overtly offensive in other ways will get you knocked upside the head. In regards to the spam thread today, the only person who got banned was the person posting racist nonsense on top of bothering people in the statuses.

[Rey Skywalker-Ren]

5 hours ago, SurrealBrain said:

Actually, I wonder if some mods are even taking their positions seriously. And at least some of them don't seem to do much in general, much less moderate, to where if not for the orange stickers, you wouldn't even realize they were mods to begin with.

Thats.... a little rude considering that like us, mods have lives as well.

[Ryannumber1gamer]

2 hours ago, Mikyeong said:

Thats.... a little rude considering that like us, mods have lives as well.

That wasn't Surreal's point. Of course we can't expect mods to be around 24/7, but there's cases where in terms of stopping disruptive members and threads (the things that us members actively see), there's mods who almost never seem to take any action, or anything. SuperLink has all but disappeared from the board altogether, and I honestly couldn't even tell you when I've ever seen Pattius handle a situation, or even really post outside of the politics thread. Surreal's point is really if you have the orange moderator sticker, you should be doing something with it. You got it for a reason, and yet some mods never seem to actually do anything despite having those stickers, usually resulting in a select group of mods doing all the work around here.

On top of that, I can't help but feel some of my reports either go unnoticed, or they're flat out ignored sometimes, because there was a recent example where three members were all in the wrong doing things that was against the board's rules, and two of them got called out by the mods, while the third member got away with it completely scott free.

[Rey Skywalker-Ren]

Like what was said, mods  contribute in other ways than what were used to. OK maybe it's wrong of me to say that they have lives even though it is true, but I do not think its right to judge unless you know.

 

[Ryannumber1gamer]

30 minutes ago, Mikyeong said:

Like what was said, mods  contribute in other ways than what were used to. OK maybe it's wrong of me to say that they have lives even though it is true, but I do not think its right to judge unless you know.

 

I never said they didn't have lives. That wasn't mentioned whatsoever in this thread. That doesn't change the fact that there are mods that are almost never seen around here, and even more rarely seen actively doing their jobs. They have lives sure, but that doesn't change the fact that they are still very rarely seen around here. No one is asking them to be on 24/7 and asking them to do everything right away, that'd frankly be idiotic, but why would you even take the job if you aren't going to do any of the things you were asked to do? Maybe they do a few things behind the scenes, but in general, those behind the scenes things aren't ever what causes the most toxic moments on SSMB, those being when some idiot decides to go onto a thread, and start up a whole drama session, as what happened yesterday can attest to. The whole "they have lives" argument is nothing but strawmanning the entire situation to it's absolute extreme when that wasn't anyone's point at all.

[goku262002]

12 hours ago, Tara said:

I'm thinking there was a time in which there were only three rules and one of them was just "Don't be a dick" or something to that effect.  I may be thinking of a different board though.

Ha, yeah thats us! good ole' Retro, our snark levels keeps us ultra classy.

Remember Sonic CulT and X-CulT's rules?! maaaan do I miss those days.

[Nepenthe]

1 hour ago, Ryannumber1gamer said:

On top of that, I can't help but feel some of my reports either go unnoticed, or they're flat out ignored sometimes, because there was a recent example where three members were all in the wrong doing things that was against the board's rules, and two of them got called out by the mods, while the third member got away with it completely scott free.

Sometimes they will be, because as I've explained a report isn't a binding thing we are obligated to address on the member's terms. We will sometimes look at a report and process it without doing anything because we don't think a situation warrants action, or we will review a situation and determine that the people reported aren't the real problem in that scenario.

We recently got a report that simply said "He's being mean" and when we looked at the post in question there was literally no disparaging language in the post nor any indication of an edit (when a report is sent, it takes a snapshot of the post at the moment of being reported, meaning you can't hide through editing). Why it was reported? Hell if any of us know. And we get reports like this literally all the time.

[Ryannumber1gamer]

1 minute ago, Nepenthe said:

Sometimes they will be, because as I've explained a report isn't a binding thing we are obligated to address on the member's terms. We will sometimes look at a report and process it without doing anything because we don't think a situation warrants action, or we will review a situation and determine that the people reported aren't the real problem in that scenario.

We recently got a report that simply said "He's being mean" and when we looked at the post in question there was literally no disparaging language in the post nor any indication of an edit (when a report is sent, it takes a snapshot of the post at the moment of being reported, meaning you can't hide through editing). Why it was reported? Hell if any of us know. And we get reports like this literally all the time.

No, I understand that part Nep, because sometimes reports are like that (I mean, someone did try to get me striked for simply debating them over Sonic Adventure after all). What I don't understand is reports about a member doing the exact same thing that other members were doing. As I said in my example, three members were doing the exact same thing. Two of those members were called out on doing it, and despite the third one doing it a lot, they still got away with it without any mention despite doing the exact thing the other two did.

[Nepenthe]

50 minutes ago, Ryannumber1gamer said:

No, I understand that part Nep, because sometimes reports are like that (I mean, someone did try to get me striked for simply debating them over Sonic Adventure after all). What I don't understand is reports about a member doing the exact same thing that other members were doing. As I said in my example, three members were doing the exact same thing. Two of those members were called out on doing it, and despite the third one doing it a lot, they still got away with it without any mention despite doing the exact thing the other two did.

Okay, I went back through the report system and the thread in question.

Only one person was called out for backseat modding by Tara, and that's because they were backseat modding-- by specifically telling other members what needed to be done as if they had the authority to do so. On top of that, this member was already talked to about by around three other staffers and had been warned less than a week prior.

What the person you and two others reported did was not even backseat modding. They were instead defending the behavior of others in the thread, which I've seen numerous people across the forum do. In fact, if you had wanted to make a stronger case against backseat modding, you all instead would have quoted the first post wherein the person states "backseat modding is against the rules," which is also a platitude we've let slide because giving someone a reminder without paired with a direct command to change the behavior isn't something we're going to punish either. Seriously, I can't count how many times someone has posted "We can't have SA3 threads" or "This thread is a duplicate." In fact, I'm sure you've done so a few times yourself, and you probably wouldn't appreciate us striking and suspending you for that. 

Furthermore, if you wanted to make your case even stronger than that, you would have reported it before Tara had told people to get back on topic. So what that looks like from our point-of-view is members trying to gang up on someone for no real reason after the situation was dealt with. That probably wasn't the intention, but that was the impression we got.

Backseat modding is literally nothing more than someone who isn't a moderator or an administrator telling another member what to do. The person you reported didn't do that which was determined by multiple staffers simply by reading their posts. So we closed out the report. We didn't "let them get away with it." You can't let someone "get away" with breaking rules if they're not breaking any.

This is how we look at reports: We read what the person is saying, we compare it against the rules on the books, and we look at the overall behavior and warn history. Staff collectively decided the report you and two others sent didn't actually conform to the rules, which is what we're supposed to do.

[Rey Skywalker-Ren]

1 hour ago, Nepenthe said:

We recently got a report that simply said "He's being mean" and when we looked at the post in question there was literally no disparaging language in the post nor any indication of an edit (when a report is sent, it takes a snapshot of the post at the moment of being reported, meaning you can't hide through editing). Why it was reported? Hell if any of us know. And we get reports like this literally all the time.

I think its the tone or whatever but still I do agree that "hes being mean!!!11" is a rather silly reason to report unless they are truely being mean. Hell I get blunt comments alot but I dont report them because they arent breaking the rules. 

There ARE times where I am very hesitent about using the feature though even if the person is doing something wrong mostly because Im afraid they will think I am a snitch or if the person doing it is a close friend of mine and I want to protect them or because the person is well respected I fear it wont be taken seriously. I know its a stupid reason but it can be intimidating even if the person in question is wrong. 

[Nepenthe]

Reports are anonymous. People don't even know they've been reported, much less will they know who they've been reported by. People protecting their friends is literally the last thing we want people to start doing.

[Ryannumber1gamer]

2 minutes ago, Mikyeong said:

I think its the tone or whatever but still I do agree that "hes being mean!!!11" is a rather silly reason to report unless they are truely being mean. Hell I get blunt comments alot but I dont report them because they arent breaking the rules. 

There ARE times where I am very hesitent about using the feature though even if the person is doing something wrong mostly because Im afraid they will think I am a snitch or if the person doing it is a close friend of mine and I want to protect them or because the person is well respected I fear it wont be taken seriously. I know its a stupid reason but it can be intimidating even if the person in question is wrong. 

That kind of reasoning is exactly what one of the biggest problems around here is. No one other than mods know about who is making reports, and who they are being made against. Not reporting someone who is breaking the rules just to either protect them, or just because "they're popular" isn't a good thing as it still means they're getting away with something they quite honestly shouldn't be.

[Rey Skywalker-Ren]

9 minutes ago, Nepenthe said:

Reports are anonymous. People don't even know they've been reported, much less will they know who they've been reported by. People protecting their friends is literally the last thing we want people to start doing.

alot of people have been doing that actually, i remember when even staff members were accused of protecting favorites or there friends. its very intimidating you know, especially if everyone wants that person around. 

[Dr. Crusher]

I agree that some of the mods don't do that much around here, and that some others who do don't necessarily handle things in the most responsible manner. I also agree that mods sometimes get away with things that regular members would have never gotten away with without getting a warning/strike/etc, such as the creation of certain types of topics.

That's not to say that I expect mods to be robots who do everything absolutely perfectly, of course I don't. Mods are human beings too after all. I just feel that a sizable number of them could do with a little improvement all around. One of the whole points about moderator responsibility is being fair and having reason to your actions, so if you let your temper, snarky side, bias, or whatever else get the better of you and your judgement a little too often, then it starts to become a problem.

[Nepenthe]

Staff favoritism is a common complaint we get and it's another thing we'd like to at least see linked examples of, because when someone says so and so got away with something simply because they're popular, that person is 9 times out of 10 someone we either don't care about or actively can't stand.

If Joe Cool didn't get a strike for being involved in a squabble, the high likelihood is that almost everyone else didn't get one either regardless of popularity or their "assumed" closeness to us, and again I emphasize assumed because I don't know of anyone without a prior staff history that's exceedingly close to us to know what's going on behind the scenes.

 

[Jovahexeon Jax Joranvexeon]

Hmm, if possible, I'd make the suggestion that those who are reporting what turns out to not be probable cause, or are simply just overreacting be informed of such, so that they may have a better idea of what warrants mod action in the future.

At the very least it should reduce repeat reportings, what with reporters being left in the dark to the situation of their particular predicaments.

[Rey Skywalker-Ren]

11 minutes ago, Nepenthe said:

Staff favoritism is a common complaint we get and it's another thing we'd like to at least see linked examples of, because when someone says so and so got away with something simply because they're popular, that person is 9 times out of 10 someone we either don't care about or actively can't stand.

If Joe Cool didn't get a strike for being involved in a squabble, the high likelihood is that almost everyone else didn't get one either regardless of popularity or their "assumed" closeness to us, and again I emphasize assumed because I don't know of anyone without a prior staff history that's exceedingly close to us to know what's going on behind the scenes.

 

yeah thats true that i dont know. its just a gut feeling i had and that said people get away with alot. mosty with one worders, where others would be yelled at for. but i think that part is more a community problem as the staff themselves seems  in the middle like it should be. so if i accused anyone, then i apologise.

thanfully i havent "protected" friends but yeah its a little intimidating. even if it is anomyous because i know i did it and it feels like backstabbing to me.

[Tani Coyote]

 

I definitely second the idea of revising the rules some. As it stands, we have the basic rules, but we also have a lot of pinned topics regarding specifics. Basically we have our statutory law and our common law, and I think it would better serve the forum if we created a revised rule list that integrated all the case decisions (e.g. the bans on in-depth sex discussion, suicide, etc.) into the central rules.

23 hours ago, SurrealBrain said:

I've seen mods ignore what seemed like problems that need dealing with. Now, sometimes, I don't report because I can't tell if I'd just be doing it out of emotions, but in some instances, there's a situation, and it gets left alone for some reason.

In addition to what others have said (lack of reports, disagreement on the moderator's part that it's an issue warranting attention), there's another big thing, that ties into your other point of "mods who aren't that active" ... one of our guidelines is to NOT go around looking for problems to take care of. We remedy issues as we stumble upon them, or if someone reports them. Basically, we browse the forum like any other member, albeit with a little report inbox that lets us look into anything other members want to bring to our attention. Go figure, it is the topics with the most interest that have the quickest moderator response - not only are we browsing them, but there are lots of people submitting reports.

In short, there is no "quota" of problems we take care of. If a moderator seems inactive, besides what Tara mentioned, there's also the strong chance someone simply may not have been around when a problem started, or another moderator got to the report. Some of us have more free time than others, we might have a different personal view on if something is an issue or not, etc.

I think what's key isn't if a specific moderator is active or not, but if the team as a whole is effective. We all pitch in our own bit of effort, and that keeps things running smoothly.

[Sean]

Chris already told some of us about this earlier today, but just as a heads up to others on the staff who might not be aware, this topic is not intended for us mods to defend or explain our actions. Its purpose is to allow members a venue for expressing concerns and critiques without the fear of being told upfront they're wrong or mistaken. I have faith in Chris to read and address the issues himself members may have with the way we do our jobs, but in the meantime, I don't want to see any member here feel discouraged from expressing their thoughts, even if we may not necessarily agree with them ourselves. Right now it's about your guys' perspective, not ours, which I think will be coming later in due time.

[Vertekins]

I generally agree with the favoritism accusation in light of a certain member getting away with questionable behavior lately. What doesn't help that impression is that I certainly recall a moderator (Forgot exactly who it was) admit to a certain member they were chastising that they do have a tenuous reputation amongst the mdoerators and have gotten away with quite a bit of bad behavior that would merit a strike for most other members if they acted that way. I know the member that post was directed at and yes, I do believe they're gotten away with a hell of a lot of shit but I'm not going to name names here. If you wish to know who that member is and where this happened (If it hasn't been deleted due to the quasi-wipe not long back - I can search for this specific post if it hasn't been wiped), please PM me to enquire further IF you're a moderator.

And also if my memory is correct (And it usually always is because this incident stood as one of the very, very few occasions when I thought the following decision was complete and utter bull which was a surprise to me and hence stuck in my memory as a result since I overwhelmingly hold the staff in high regard and their decisions I generally agree with and understand), around Sonic Lost World's release, a rule was introduced in the thread post-release that dictated that less than positive opinions about the game weren't permitted because they were causing too much drama amongst the game's supporters immeditately post-release. This was just over two years ago yes. But I've been concerned ever since that limiting of valid opinions for the sake of the crowd who simply couldn't tolerate even moderate criticism of the game in that example may or may not create an environment wherein true freedom of speech can be limited by moderator approval for the sake of the appeasement of the real problem (The intolerant crowd) and I personally don't agree with that.

[Your Vest Friend]

I'd rather we not encourage gossip about other members like that, it probably creates more hostility than helping the situation if you're explicitly saying that you don't want to name names but you're still up for dishing dirt on them.

[Vertekins]

26 minutes ago, VEDJ-F said:

I'd rather we not encourage gossip about other members like that, it probably creates more hostility than helping the situation if you're explicitly saying that you don't want to name names but you're still up for dishing dirt on them.

The "PM if you want the name" thing is an invitation to moderators if they want evidence to back-up what I said.

Not anyone else. I will not reveal anything to anyone except moderators.

[Sonic the Hedgehog in 3D]

Since I have been told to come here with my problems, I will.
I would like to preface this that I have nothing against Azoo or his post, what I have a problem with is this:

I feel as if I am being unfairly warned for a joke post, while I can understand not wanting your forum to be all joke posts, but I don't believe that it's fair to warn me for one joke post about FNAF World's graphics.
Especially when a moderator has made this topic:

I do not feel that it's fair that a moderator can make an entire shitpost thread and not get a warning for it, and I make one joke post which raises a valid post about FNAF world's graphics being atrocious and I am warned that I cannot make "shitpost" posts anymore. I believe this should be "everyone can shitpost now and again" or "nobody can shitpost ever" not "only mods can shitpost". Moderators should be setting an example and I believe that if one of them is shitposting, regular users shouldn't be punished for making shitposts

[Failinhearts]

I do have to state that the topic Azoo made was rather questionable. I don't really believe mods should be making threads like that since making nonsense similar to what happened a couple days ago are against the rules. Just because you're a mod doesn't mean you should get a free pass for this sort of thing.